91 F.4th 1013
9th Cir.2024Background
- Adriana Holt, her children, and Beatriz Lukens brought § 1983 and state law claims against Orange County and deputy sheriffs, alleging unlawful search and arrest.
- Holt and her children first sued in federal court (Holt I) within the limitations period; Lukens was not part of this original suit.
- Their claims were later included in an amended complaint in a different federal case (Moon), after which Holt I was voluntarily dismissed.
- The Moon claims were twice dismissed for improper joinder. The plaintiffs then filed this action (Holt II), by which time the statutory period for Holt's and Lukens's claims had run unless tolled.
- The district court dismissed their claims as time-barred, finding no tolling applied under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
- Plaintiffs appeal, arguing the limitations period was tolled either by statute or by equitable principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary dismissal of claims in federal court tolls the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) | Holt: Yes; § 1367(d) tolls limitations for federal and state claims dismissed at the same time | County: No; § 1367(d) does not apply to voluntary dismissals, only district court dismissals | No tolling; voluntary dismissals do not toll statutes of limitations |
| Whether dismissal for improper joinder tolls the statute of limitations for state and federal claims | Lukens: Yes; improper joinder dismissal should toll limitations | County: No; dismissals for improper joinder do not toll limitations | No tolling; dismissals for improper joinder do not toll statutes of limitations |
| Whether statutory COVID-19 extensions apply to revive plaintiffs’ claims | Holt & Lukens: COVID-19 rules and orders tolled statutes, making claims timely | County: Claims expired before rules/orders became effective | No tolling; claims expired before COVID-related rules/orders took effect |
| Whether equitable tolling is warranted for good faith pursuit of claims | Holt & Lukens: Good faith efforts merit equitable tolling | County: Plaintiffs did not act in good faith | No equitable tolling; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (section 1983 claims borrow state statute of limitations and tolling rules)
- Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (2002) (section 1367(d) does not toll statutes for dismissals unrelated to district court declination of supplemental jurisdiction)
- United States ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus., Inc., 720 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2013) (claims may only be dismissed as untimely if statute of limitations is clear on face of complaint)