Albano v. SHEA HOMES LTD. PARTNERSHIP
227 Ariz. 121
| Ariz. | 2011Background
- Albano and others sued Shea Homes for construction defects in a Gilbert, Arizona subdivision.
- The district court dismissed based on Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose, A.R.S. § 12-552.
- The Ninth Circuit certified questions about whether class-action tolling applies to limitations and to statutes of repose.
- Arizona Supreme Court assumed class-action tolling may apply to limitations but addressed whether it applies to repose.
- The Court held American Pipe tolling does not apply to § 12-552, and declined to extend tolling to statutes of repose; it also rejected the savings statute as a remedy for Albano II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does American Pipe tolling apply to Arizona’s statute of repose §12-552? | Albano: tolling should apply to repose. | Shea Homes: tolling does not apply to repose. | No; tolling does not apply to §12-552. |
| Can the savings statute §12-504(A) salvage the untimely Albano II action? | Albano: savings statute could revive timely actions. | Shea Homes: savings statute cannot revive barred claims in this context. | Savings statute cannot save Albano II; not applicable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class-action tolling generally tolls limitations for class members)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (tolling applies to class actions after denial of certification)
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1991) (statute of repose not tolled; policy considerations)
- Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 215 Ariz. 237 (Ariz. 2006) (state tolling considerations; repose context cited)
- Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., 207 Ariz. 495 (Ariz. 2004) (statute of repose purpose and timing)