Equitable Tolling

1,372 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Smith v. Local 7898
  834 F.2d 93· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A union's honest, mistaken conduct in interpreting a collective bargaining agreement or relying on informal advice does not violate its duty of fair representation.
• Rich v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  798 F.2d 432· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petition for review was untimely because it was filed after the sixty-day statutory period, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
• Shockley v. Vt. State Colleges
  793 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because factual issues remained regarding equitable estoppel and the statute of limitations.
• Donovan v. Dist. 1199
  760 F.2d 440· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a union's non-compliance with a subpoena tolls the statute of limitations for the Department of Labor to bring suit to set aside an election.
• Tillman v. City OF Milwaukee
  715 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action for failure to join DILHR, as the EEOC filing requirement is not jurisdictional and DILHR could potentially be joined.
• Appelbaum v. Ceres Land Co.
  687 F.2d 261· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over the pendent state claims and that the state Blue Sky claims were properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Reese v. Akai Am. Ltd.
  19 B.R. 83· S.D. Fla.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that payments made by Kennedy and Cohen to vendors within four months of bankruptcy constituted voidable preferences because the vendors had reasonable cause to believe the company was insolvent.
• Jefferson v. H. K. Porter Co.
  648 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellants' claims were time-barred because the prior litigation did not toll the statute of limitations for the § 1981 claim, and the Title VII claims were conceded to be time-barred.
• Gill v. Monroe Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  547 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the class action employment discrimination suit was improper, vacating the order and remanding for reconsideration.
• Agajan v. Ramsey Clark
  381 F.2d 937· D.C. Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shareholders' suit was properly dismissed because they failed to file a timely notice of claim for the vested corporate assets, and the corporation's prior claim did not serve as a timely claim for the shareholders.
• 601 Cuda Props. LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-03-25 ·cited 1×
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of an amended petition for a formal administrative proceeding. The court held that the South Florida Water Management District was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing because the appellant failed to plead suffic
• Lumpkin v. United States
  2024 WL 3103488· M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the prisoner must demonstrate the timeliness of each claim in his § 2255 motion, as the motion was filed after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
• 601 Cuda Props., LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  401 So. 3d 517· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-09-18 ·cited 1×
  601 Cuda Properties appealed the dismissal of its petition for an administrative hearing on an environmental resource permit. The court affirmed the dismissal as untimely but reversed the prejudicial dismissal, allowing Cuda to file an amended petition raising equitable tolling.
• Hunt v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and not subject to statutory or equitable tolling, nor did it present a valid claim of actual innocence to overcome the time bar.
• McEvoy v. Apollo Global Mgmt., LLC
  2021 WL 2661006· M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations because they were not filed within the applicable three-year period and did not relate back to earlier filings, nor were they sufficiently tolled.
• Kuchenbecker v. Johnson & Johnson
  939 F. Supp. 2d 1269· S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-16 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing claims for defective manufacturing, 'defective product,' negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of warranty, and tolling/concealment, but denying dismissal for unjust enrichment
• Keeler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  2017 WL 6026247· Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-03-25 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, finding that the trial court erred by not considering the plaintiff's breach of contract claim and by not adequately addressing the doctrine of equitable tolling under the Uniform Commercial Code (
• Williams v. Dep't OF Corr.
  156 So. 3d 563· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-01-23 ·cited 1×
  Gregory Williams, a former assistant warden at a state prison, appealed the dismissal of his employment discrimination claim under Florida's Civil Rights Act. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Williams' claim was time-barred because he failed to file an administrativ
• Trisha's ONE Stop, Inc. v. Off. OF Fin. Reg.
  130 So. 3d 285· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-01-29 ·cited 1×
  Trisha's One Stop, Inc. appeals an administrative order from the Office of Financial Regulation that imposed a $15,000 fine and revoked its money services business license. The court affirms the order, holding that the company's failure to timely request an administrative hearing
• Affco New Zealand, Ltd. v. Am. Fine Foods Corp.
  462 F. Supp. 2d 1060· S.D. Fla.· 2012-12-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the specific performance claim was time-barred, and the U.S. trademark registration was incontestable and could not be cancelled. Summary judgment was granted on these counts.
• Morrissette v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
  25 So. 3d 630· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-12-30 ·cited 1×
  Morrissette filed a personal injury suit against Norwegian Cruise Line in Miami-Dade County circuit court within the one-year contractual period, but the cruise line contract required suit to be brought in federal district court. The circuit court dismissed for lack of proper ven
• Aleong v. State
  16 So. 3d 190· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-08-05 ·cited 1×
  Dr. Philip Jerome Aleong appealed the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine's amended final order imposing disciplinary sanctions for incomplete medical records on a treated horse. The court affirmed the sanctions but found one factual finding (that Aleong was on probation) was un
• Rodriguez v. Archbishop John C. Favalora
  11 So. 3d 393· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-04-08 ·cited 1×
• Booth Ex Rel. Estate of Booth v. Carnival Corp.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 985· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-09 ·cited 1×
  The filing of a state court action, even if dismissed for improper venue based on a contractual forum selection clause, can equitably toll the statute of limitations for a subsequent federal action, provided the plaintiff acted diligently.
• United States v. McDaniel (In Re McDaniel)
  363 B.R. 239· M.D. Fla.· 2007-01-08 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order vacating a debtor's discharge and dismissing her case, finding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by balancing equitable considerations.
• Prieto v. City of Miami Beach
  190 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-14 ·cited 1×
  The court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the plaintiffs' claims time-barred and that they failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or impact.
• Wales v. Jack M. Berry, Inc.
  192 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2000-11-30 ·cited 1×
  The court determined damages for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), awarding specific amounts for unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, and statutory damages.
• St. John v. United States
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 1999-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim under the FTCA was time-barred because he failed to file it within the applicable statute of limitations and equitable tolling was not warranted.
• Avante, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  722 So. 2d 965· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-12-31 ·cited 1×
• Singer v. Smith Barney Shearson
  926 F. Supp. 183· S.D. Fla.· 1996-04-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the parties' arbitration agreements clearly expressed an intent to submit all disputes, including eligibility, to arbitration, and thus the NASD had jurisdiction over the eligibility dispute.
• Foster v. United States
  858 F. Supp. 1157· M.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was 50% comparatively negligent, significantly exaggerating her injuries, and thus awarded minimal damages. The husband's derivative claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Forehand v. Fla. State Hosp. at Chattahoochee
  839 F. Supp. 807· N.D. Fla.· 1993-11-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that class certification was improper due to a lack of rigorous analysis and that certain plaintiffs failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to suit, but equitable modification could cure procedural defects for others.
• Fioretti v. Mass. Gen. Life Ins.
  892 F. Supp. 1492· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the incontestability clause in a life insurance policy does not bar the insurer from raising the defense of fraud by imposture, even if the policy has been in force for two years, because the insurer never intended to insure the impostor.
• Orsi v. Kirkwood
  999 F.2d 86· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that summary judgment for defendants was proper because plaintiffs' claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act were time-barred or defendants were exempt, and their breach of contract claims were based on untimely and unauthenticated evidence.
• Robinson v. Cent. Brass Mfg. Co. & Int'l Union
  987 F.2d 1235· 6th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a union member's claim against their employer for wrongful discharge under § 301 is barred by the statute of limitations if internal union remedies could have provided complete relief and were not pursued within the limitations period. However, a claim against
• Miller v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp.
  977 F.2d 834· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on statutes of limitations for the equal pay and failure to promote claims, as a reasonable jury could find the claims were timely filed.
• Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Robertson
  931 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the fifteen-day limitations period for challenging timber sales under Section 318, and that the plaintiffs' challenges to six timber sales should be permitted to proceed.
• Gormin v. Brown-Forman Corp.
  744 F. Supp. 1100· M.D. Fla.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 1×
  Unsupervised waivers of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) are void and unenforceable because the ADEA incorporates the enforcement procedures of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), under which such waivers are invalid. A timely class charge filed by a
• Cooley v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  895 F.2d 1301· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a petition for review of a Benefits Review Board order must be filed with the appropriate court of appeals within the statutory 60-day period to invoke jurisdiction.
• Salazar v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  715 F. Supp. 351· S.D. Fla.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim was time-barred because she failed to file an administrative charge with the EEOC within the required 300-day period.
• Kazanzas v. Walt Disney World Co.
  518 F. Supp. 292· M.D. Fla.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the 180-day filing period for the ADEA claim should be tolled due to the defendant's failure to post a compliant notice, the plaintiff's lack of actual knowledge of the filing requirement, and the absence of prejudice to the defendant.
• Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  578 F.2d 444· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar recovery because the defendant's evasive and misleading responses impeded the plaintiff's ability to discover the full scope of the violation, distinguishing the case from prior precedent.
• Stoltz Mgmt. OF Del., Inc. v. Entrata, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-30
  Stoltz Management sued Entrata, Inc. for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of unfair trade practices acts after Entrata failed to deliver functional smart home hubs for apartment complexes and refused refunds. The Delaware Superior Court granted the mot
• Sheets v. Woelk
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-20
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) should be denied when the dismissal resulted from his intentional actions and lack of diligence, not excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.
• Sheets v. Gorman
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-20
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) should be denied because his failure to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status was not due to excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstan
• Weiner v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead participation in a sex trafficking venture for the TVPRA claim and that the negligence claim was time-barred. The vicarious liability claim was allowed to proceed.
• Sims v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-15
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her ADA, Title VII, and FCRA claims, and her FMLA and Florida Whistleblower Act claims were time-barred, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Jarol Antonio Santiago v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-08
  The district court denied petitioner Santiago's Rule 60(b)(3) motion seeking relief from a final judgment based on alleged fraud or misrepresentation by the respondent. The court found that Santiago failed to present clear and convincing evidence of misconduct and that any inform
• Kinchen v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-05
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was time-barred and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling or relief on his constitutional claims.
• John Doe I v. Parviz Sabeti
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-22
  The court held that it would not consider new arguments raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that the defendant's motion to modify the protective order was denied.