DOCSLIB.ORG

Expert Q&A on Tolling of Securities Claims After Calpers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Expert Q&A on Tolling of Securities Claims After Calpers OF NOTE ©iStockphoto.com/cnythzl ©iStockphoto.com/cnythzl Expert Q&A on Tolling of Securities Claims After CalPERS In California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Secs., Inc. (CalPERS), the US Supreme Court confirmed that the three-year limitations period for bringing claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) is a statute of repose that is not subject to tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, which tolls applicable statutes of limitations for class members’ claims that have been asserted in a timely filed class action. Practical Law asked John Clarke and Andrew Escobar of DLA Piper LLP (US) to explain the significance of the CalPERS decision, including the implications for potential opt-out claimants, and what open questions remain. JOHN J. CLARKE, JR. ANDREW R. ESCOBAR PARTNER PARTNER DLA PIPER LLP (US) DLA PIPER LLP (US) John is co-chair of the firm’s Corporate and Securities Andrew focuses his practice on securities, complex Litigation practice. He represents clients in complex commercial, class action, and real estate litigation. He litigation and internal investigations involving financial has experience in all phases of federal and state court institutions, securities and financial instruments, litigation in multiple jurisdictions, including expert and structured transactions, accounting issues, and lay discovery, dispositive motions, trials, and appeals. corporate governance disputes. 12 August/September 2017 | Practical Law © 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. What were the principal issues in the Supreme Court’s Section 12(a)(2)) (137 S. Ct. at 2052). This means defendants in ruling in CalPERS? Securities Act class actions will have more certainty concerning In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the their potential exposure to individual claims of putative class majority in CalPERS reiterated the distinction between statutes members once the three-year repose period has expired. of limitations and statutes of repose and held that American Pipe In addition, the Supreme Court’s holding in CalPERS resolves tolling is an equitable doctrine that cannot be used to extend a circuit split on whether American Pipe tolling is available to a statute of repose (137 S. Ct. 2042, 2049-52 (2017) (citing extend a statute of repose. In a decision issued in 2000, the American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 558-59 (1974), Tenth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling could be used CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2182-83 (2014), and to extend a repose period, but more recent decisions from Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits disagreed (compare 363 (1991))). Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, 1168 (10th Cir. 2010) with In re The Supreme Court explained that statutes of limitations are Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 655 F. App’x 13, 15-16 (2d Cir. designed to encourage plaintiffs to pursue diligent prosecution 2016); Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, of known claims and, as a result, they begin to run when a cause Inc., 821 F.3d 780, 792-95 (6th Cir. 2016); Dusek v. JP Morgan of action accrues. By contrast, statutes of repose set an end date Chase & Co., 832 F.3d 1243, 1248-49 (11th Cir. 2016)). The that serves as an absolute bar to liability once the legislatively CalPERS decision is likely to be cited by defendants seeking prescribed time period has elapsed. dismissal of a wide variety of late-filed claims in which a statutory framework includes a statute of repose, and not only in Claims brought under the Securities Act, like the Section 11 cases involving claims arising under the Securities Act. claim at issue in CalPERS, are subject to the limitations periods set out in Section 13 of the Act. The Supreme Court in CalPERS On a broader note, CalPERS is significant because it is one of determined that Section 13 contains both: the first cases to be argued before Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who joined the majority opinion. His focus during oral argument on A statute of limitations. Plaintiffs must bring Section 11 the plain language of Section 13 might be an early indicator of a claims “within one year after the discovery of the untrue strict construction approach to issues of statutory interpretation. statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Search Three-Year Statute of Repose for Alleged Securities Act § 11 A statute of repose. Plaintiffs may not bring Section 11 claims Violations Not Subject to Equitable Tolling During Pending Class “more than three years after the security was bona fide offered Action: Supreme Court for more on the CalPERS decision. to the public.” (137 S. Ct. at 2047-50 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77m).) Does the CalPERS decision reflect a departure from The Supreme Court considered and rejected a series of arguments precedent focused on preserving a plaintiff’s privilege for permitting tolling of the repose period, including that: to opt out? A refusal to apply American Pipe tolling would eviscerate class The petitioners argued in CalPERS that denying American Pipe members’ right to opt out of a pending class action. tolling would deprive absent class members of their right to opt Strict enforcement of the repose period would multiply the out of a class. The majority opinion disagreed, reasoning that number of individual actions asserting claims already pending its holding was instead a reminder that class members must in a class action resulting in inefficiencies and higher litigation exercise their opt-out rights within mandatory time limits set by expenses. statute. (137 S. Ct. at 2053.) (137 S. Ct. at 2053-54.) The purpose of the opt-out right is to afford class members due A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg process. In the context of a class action brought under Federal discussed these and other reasons for disagreement with the Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (including most securities class majority’s ruling (137 S. Ct. at 2056-58). actions), putative class members have the right to be excluded from the class and therefore not to be bound by any subsequent class judgment. This due process interest is fully protected Search Securities Litigation: Defending Against Untimely Claims for more on the differences between a statute of limitations and a statute as long as the absent class member is “provided with an of repose. opportunity to remove himself from the class by executing and returning an ‘opt out’ or ‘request for exclusion’ form to the court.” (Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985).) Why is the CalPERS ruling significant? In securities litigation, the plaintiff that first filed the class The decision makes clear that the statutory repose period in complaint must publish notice of the class action within Section 13 of the Securities Act affords “full and final security” 20 days after filing to comply with the requirements of the against new suits asserting Securities Act claims filed more than Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) (5 U.S.C. three years after a securities offering (or the sale of a security § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)). Class members then might seek lead pursuant to an offering, in the case of claims arising under plaintiff status or, in the alternative, exercise their right to be © 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. The Journal | Litigation | August/September 2017 13 OF NOTE excluded from the class and file their own lawsuit. This early For example, defense counsel might seek to challenge whether, notice and lead plaintiff procedure distinguishes securities class after the repose period has expired: actions from other types of federal class actions. The prompt Named plaintiffs can amend otherwise timely claims to add a notice protects the due process rights of class members by plaintiff in an effort to cure standing issues. informing them of the existence of the case and affording them A court can grant class certification. an early chance to opt out. Unnamed class members can join in class relief. Search Securities Litigation: Mapping a Strategy for Defending Against Fraud Claims for more on the PSLRA. Search Securities Litigation: Class Actions Arising from IPOs for more on securities class actions, including common challenges and defenses to plaintiffs’ claims. Since CalPERS, some commentators have expressed concern that the decision might impede or eliminate investors’ ability to opt out of a class settlement reached after the statute of The petitioners in CalPERS argued that unnamed class repose has expired. As a technical matter, class members members will inundate district courts with protective still will be permitted to opt out of such a settlement, but in filings following the Supreme Court’s decision. Do you those circumstances an investor will be barred from filing its agree that federal courts should prepare for an influx of own lawsuit. While this result might seem harsh, an investor new protective filings? concerned with preserving its option to file an individual suit can There is an open question whether CalPERS will lead to an still do so, but it must do so before the repose period has passed. increase in the number of individual (or “opt-out”) actions. At a minimum, the decision should lead institutional investors with What open questions remain for plaintiffs hoping to large potential claims to pay more careful attention to the three- rely on American Pipe tolling following the CalPERS year anniversary of challenged securities offerings. decision? In 2016, the median time elapsed from the filing of a federal For claims subject to the three-year repose period in Section 13 class action complaint to a decision on class certification was of the Securities Act, the CalPERS decision definitively resolves approximately two and a half years, and the median time from the American Pipe tolling issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agreement and Release of All Claims
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS This Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between ANDRES ALEXANDER CACEDA-MANTILLA and CITY OF PALMER, ALASKA (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Parties”). “Claimant” shall collectively mean Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla and his respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, trustees, and assigns. “Released Party” shall collectively mean City of Palmer, Alaska, and its respective, employees, assigns, heirs, agents, attorneys, adjusters, insurers, and re-insurers. I. Recitals A. The purpose this Agreement is to facilitate the settlement, dismissal with prejudice, and release of any and all claims which were asserted, or which could have been asserted, with respect to the facts giving rise to Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla v. City of Palmer, Alaska, Kristi Muilenburg, Jamie Hammons, Daniel Potter, and Hilary Schwaderer, Case No. 3PA-18-01410 CI, a lawsuit now pending in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Palmer (“the Lawsuit”). B. The City of Palmer denies all the allegations of the Lawsuit and specifically denies that it has any liability based on the allegations set forth in the Lawsuit. C. The City of Palmer regrets any inconvenience, embarrassment, or personal hardship the incident may have caused Mr. Caceda-Mantilla. D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to provide, among other things, for consideration in full settlement and discharge of all claims and actions of {00821062} SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS Andres Alexander Caceda-Mantilla v. City of Palmer, Alaska, et al., Case No. 3PA-18-01410 Civil Page 1 of 9 Claimant for damages that allegedly arose out of, or due to, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • CERCLA State Statutes of Repose
    Latham & Watkins Environmental Litigation Practice June 20, 2014 | Number 1698 Supreme Court Ruling Resolves Conflict on State Statutes of Repose US Supreme Court rules CERCLA Section 309 does not preempt state statutes of repose. Federal causes of action remain unaffected. Last week, in a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 3091 does not preempt state statutes of repose. 2 The Court’s decision resolves a split between the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits regarding the preemptive effect of Section 309 on state statutes of repose.3 Case History In Waldburger, CTS Corporation, the former owner of an electronics and electronics parts plant in North Carolina, faced state nuisance claims brought by the property’s current owners and neighboring landowners based, in part, on allegations that CTS Corporation contaminated the groundwater with chlorinated solvents. CTS Corporation operated at the site from 1959 to 1985 and sold its former property in 1987. In 2009, EPA allegedly notified Plaintiffs that nearby well water was contaminated. In 2011, 24 years after CTS Corporation sold its North Carolina property, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking “reclamation” of “toxic chemical contaminants,” “remediation of the environmental harm caused” by the contaminants, and monetary damages for “all the losses and damages they have suffered...and will suffer in the future.” 4 The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on North Carolina’s statute of repose, 5 which provides a 10-year filing deadline “from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.”6 The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court on the basis of Section 309 preemption.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement and General Release
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE For valuable consideration as hereinafter set forth, this Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Karen McDougal ("McDougal"), on the one hand, and American Media, Inc. ("AMI"), on the other hand, to memorialize their agreement with reference to the Recitals set forth herein. McDougal and AMI are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties," and any one of them is sometimes referred to herein as a "Party." This Agreement is made effective as of the date of the last of the Parties' signatures below (the "Effective Date"). RECITALS WHEREAS, McDougal is the plaintiff and AMI is the defendant in an action entitled Karen McDougal v. American Media, Inc., et al., Superior Court for the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC 698956 (the "Action"), which contains a single cause of action for declaratory relief. WHEREAS, AMI has filed a Special Motion to Strike the Complaint in the Action pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and has requested that the Court award attorney's fees and costs against McDougal. WHEREAS, the Parties each deny any and all wrongdoing and liability. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to fully, finally and completely conclude the Action, together with all existing and potential claims, damages, and causes of action between them. And, as part of such resolution, the Parties wish to enter into a novated Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement ("Exhibit A"). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, obligations, undertakings and consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the Parties expressly, knowingly, voluntarily and mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries
    cgvdfagaf Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Benchmark Analysis Prepared by: Elza Bergmane PUC, Latvia Dilek Civak Erdas EMRA, Turkey July, 2016 May, 2016 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Energy Regulators Regional Association II. Jánost Pál pápa tér 7., 1081 Budapest Tel.: +36 1 477 0456 ǀ Fax: +36 1 477 0455 E-mail: [email protected] ǀ Web: www.erranet.org BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: Dispute Settlement Practice and Complaint Handling Procedures in ERRA Countries Prepared by: Elza Bergmane Member of the ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group; Senior Lawyer, Energy Division of Legal Department; Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of Latvia and Dilek Civak Erdas Member of the ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group; Energy Expert, Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) of Turkey July, 2016 The Analysis was prepared based on information collected from ERRA Customers and Retail Markets Working Group Members in the period of June 2014 – June 2016. The following ERRA Members submitted their answers: Public Services Regulatory Commission, Armenia Regulatory Commission for Energy in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FERK) Regulatory Commission for Energy of Republika Srpska (RERS), Bosnia and Herzegovina Estonian Competition Authority Georgian National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission Hungarian Energy and Public Utility
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Issues in Settlement Negotiations: How to Avoid Waiver of the Statute of Limitations
    LIMITATION ISSUES IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: HOW TO AVOID WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Presented and Prepared by: Matthew R. Booker [email protected] Springfield, Illinois • 217.522.8822 The cases and materials presented here are in summary and outline form. To be certain of their applicability and use for specific claims, we Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen recommend the entire opinions and statutes be read PEORIA • SPRINGFIELD • URBANA • ROCKFORD • EDWARDSVILLE and counsel consulted. © 2009 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen C-1 LIMITATION ISSUES IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: HOW TO AVOID WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... C-3 II. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... C-3 III. ESTOPPEL V. WAIVER ................................................................................................................................. C-4 IV. EXAMPLES ...................................................................................................................................................... C-5 V. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... C-10 C-2 LIMITATION ISSUES IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: HOW TO AVOID WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS I. INTRODUCTION A frequent
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:12-Cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27
    Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD KEPHART and DIANE ) KEPHART, ) Civil Action No. 2:12-668 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge Kim R. Gibson ) v. ) ) ABB, INC., ) ) Defendant; Third-Party ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE BABCOCK & WILCOX ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Third-Party Defendants ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT I. Synopsis Before the Court in this matter are three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 94) filed by Third-Party Defendants Babcock & Wilcox Company, Babcock & Wilcox Investment Company, and Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group (“B & W” or “B & W Defendants”); (2) a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 108) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. (“ABB”); and (3) a motion for consolidation of oral argument (ECF No. 111) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. The primary issue argued by the parties is whether Pennsylvania’s statute of repose, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5536, provides protection from liability in this action to Third-Party Defendants B & W and to Defendant ABB. Based on the record before the Court and after Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 27 a careful review of Pennsylvania’s statute of repose and the relevant case law, the Court finds that the statute of repose bars ABB’s contribution claims against the B & W Defendants, but does not bar Plaintiffs’ products liability and negligence claims against ABB. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT B & W’s motion to dismiss and will DENY ABB’s motion for partial summary judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 38 Issue 3 Issue 3 - April 1985 Article 8 4-1985 The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns Josephine H. Hicks Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Josephine H. Hicks, The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns, 38 Vanderbilt Law Review 627 (1985) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol38/iss3/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 627 II. STATUTES OF REPOSE ............................. 628 A. Defining "Statute of Repose" ............... 628 B. Arguments For and Against Statutes of Re- p ose ...................................... 632 III. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES .............................. 635 A. Equal Protection .......................... 635 B. Due Process ............................... 642 C. Open Courts, Access to Courts, and Remedy. 644 IV. ANALYSIS .......................................... 648 A. Effect of State Constitutional Law .......... 648 B. Future Direction .......................... 652 C. Arguments For and Against National Legisla- tion .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • SOL-CHART.Pdf
    MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Hartford, WI ❖ New Orleans, LA ❖ Orange County, CA ❖ Austin, TX ❖ Jacksonville, FL Phone: (800) 637-9176 [email protected] www.mwl-law.com STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR ALL 50 STATES A statute of limitations (SOL) specifies a time period for commencing suit on a given claim that begins to run, or is triggered, when the cause of action accrues. When a cause of action “accrues” generally depends on the particular state involved, but it is usually when an accident occurs or when a claimant “discovers” the resulting injury. While a statute of limitations takes effect when a claim arises, a statute of repose bars the bringing of a suit after a set period of time, regardless of whether an injury occurred, or a claim has arisen. The time limit for bringing suit established by a statute of repose is triggered by a specified event, such as the substantial completion of an improvement to real property, the date a product was used, or the date a product was sold. All fifty (50) states currently have statutes of repose, varying in both the type of claim covered by the statute and the length of the repose period. Forty-six (46) states have a statute of repose which apply to actions involving real property design, engineering, and construction. However, nineteen (19) states also have statutes of repose limiting product liability claims. STRICT PRODUCT PERSONAL PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS STATE LIABILITY / BREACH OF STATUTE OF REPOSE PROPERTY INJURY REQUIREMENT WARRANTY Construction: 7 Years from substantial 2 Years completion to improvement to real An action is commenced by filing a Ala.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 4 1972 Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E. Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John E. Kennedy, Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation, 38 J. Air L. & Com. 325 (1972) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol38/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS AND IMPLEADER IN FEDERAL AVIATION LITIGATION JOHN E. KENNEDY* I. THE GENERAL PROBLEM: MULTIPLE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS W HEN airplanes crash, difficult procedural problems often arise from the numbers of potential parties and the com- plexity of the applicable substantive law. Since under that law, re- covery can be granted to large numbers of plaintiffs, and liability can be distributed to a variety of defendants, the procedural rights to counterclaim, cross-claim and implead third-parties have become important aspects of federal aviation litigation. When death results the most obvious parties plaintiff are those injured by the death of the decedent, i.e., the spouses, children, heirs and creditors. Whether they must sue through an estate, or special administrator or directly by themselves will ordinarily be determined by the particular state wrongful death statute under which the action is brought, and the capacity law of the forum.' In addition, the status of the decedent will also have bearing on the parties and the form of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutes of Limitation and Repose in Construction Defect Cases
    We are a full-service Civil Litigation Defense firm serving Western/Central Pennsylvania and West Virginia September 2016 The Gulf Tower 14th Floor 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-258-2255 Fax: 412-263-5632 www.walshlegal.net Walsh, Barnes, Collis & Zumpella, P.C. represents insurance carriers, their insureds, and corporations in actions encompassing the entire civil litigation spectrum. We provide defense of wrongful death and personal injury claims in addition to property losses resulting from: • Automobile and Tractor Trailer Accidents • Catastrophic Fire Losses Statutes of Limitation and Repose • Construction Accidents in Construction Defect Cases • Employment Practices Liability The affirmative defenses 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated • Executive Liability of the statute of limitations and Statutes. • Insurance Coverage the statute of repose are two (2) A statute of repose is a statute • Premises Liability powerful defenses a defendant barring any suit that is brought after in a construction defect case may a specified time since the defendant • Product Liability assert. Although the successful acted, even if this period ends • Professional Liability assertion of both of these defenses before the plaintiff has suffered a may result in an early dismissal of resulting injury. A statute of repose IN THIS ISSUE: a lawsuit, these defenses are quite begins to run upon the completion Statutes of Limitation and Repose different in both theory and practical of certain conduct by a party. Graver in Construction Defect Cases ................... Page 1 application. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 96 A.3d Workers’ Compensation Immunity Generally, a statute of limitation 383 (Pa.Super. 2014). Because is Broad, But… .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Tort Claims Act II
    Federal Tort Claims Act II In This Issue Using the “Private Individual Under Like Circumstances” to Your Advantage: The Analogous Private Liability Requirement Under the January Federal Tort Claims Act . 1 2011 By Adam M. Dinnell Volume 59 Number 1 The Federal Tort Claims Act is a Very Limited Waiver of Sovereign United States Immunity – So Long as Agencies Follow Their Own Rules and Do Not Department of Justice Executive Office for Simply Ignore Problems . 16 United States Attorneys Washington, DC By David S. Fishback 20530 H. Marshall Jarrett Director Jurisdiction Limits on Damages in FTCA Cases . 31 By Jeff Ehrlich Contributors' opinions and statements should not be considered an endorsement by EOUSA for any policy, program, The Benefit of Proving Benefits – Avoiding Paying Twice For the Same or service. Injury Under the FTCA . .35 The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published pursuant to 28 By Conor Kells CFR § 0.22(b). The United States Attorneys' Defending Wrongful Death and Survival Claims Brought Under the Bulletin is published bimonthly by the Executive Office for United Federal Tort Claims Act . 41 States Attorneys, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, By Jamie L. Hoxie Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Managing Editor The United States’ Waivers of Sovereign Immunity in Admiralty . .46 Jim Donovan By Peter Myer Law Clerks Elizabeth Gailey Carmel Matin Researching the Legislative History of the Federal Tort Claims Act . .52 Internet Address By Jennifer L. McMahan and Mimi Vollstedt www.usdoj.gov/usao/ reading_room/foiamanuals. html Send article submissions and address changes to Managing Editor, United States Attorneys' Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201.
    [Show full text]