Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. JFS Development, Inc., 789 F.3d 821

Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites hired North Dakota architect Lightowler Johnson Associates to design an AmericInn hotel; Lightowler’s standard form contract specified North Dakota law.
Lightowler delivered plans in November 2003, issued revisions through February 2004, and participated in a July 26, 2004 site visit; its last project communication was September 24, 2004.
AmericInn and Lightowler exchanged reports identifying design/construction deficiencies in late 2003–2004; the hotel opened December 9, 2004, but never received a final certificate of occupancy (denied October 2006).
Cedar Rapids Lodge sued various parties in federal court on December 3, 2009, asserting, inter alia, professional negligence against Lightowler; the district court granted Lightowler summary judgment as time-barred.
On appeal, the parties disputed whether North Dakota’s two-year or Iowa’s five-year statute of limitations applied; plaintiff argued tolling (adverse domination/continuous representation) to keep the Iowa claim timely.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the negligence claim against Lightowler was untimely under either state’s law and declined to extend tolling doctrines as plaintiff proposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state’s limitations period governs and whether claim is timely	Iowa law (5‑year) applies and claim filed within 5 years of accrual	North Dakota law (2‑year) applies; claim untimely under either rule	Even assuming Iowa law, claim is untimely; affirmed summary judgment
Does adverse domination toll the limitations period for claims against a non‑agent third party	Tolling should apply until adverse governors were removed (Oct 2008)	Adverse domination should not be extended to third‑party negligence claims absent conspiracy/agency	Court declined to extend doctrine to arms‑length third‑party negligence; tolling not available
Does the continuous representation (continuous‑service) doctrine delay accrual until substantial completion (Dec 9, 2004)	Accrual should wait until construction substantially completed while architect’s services were ongoing	Plaintiff had notice before completion; accrual under discovery rule occurred earlier	Court refused to adopt continuous representation to delay accrual where plaintiff knew or should have known before completion
When did cause of action accrue under Iowa discovery rule	Plaintiff: accrual at or after Dec 9, 2004 (within 5 years)	Defendant: accrual occurred by Nov 2003–2004 based on reports, letters, and site visits	Accrual occurred earlier; objective notice/records show plaintiff should have discovered claims more than five years before suit

Walker v. Thielen Motors, Inc., 916 F.2d 450 (8th Cir.) (procedural note on applying state accrual rules in federal court)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Armbruster, 52 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 1995) (discussion of adverse domination doctrine)
K&W Elec., Inc. v. State, 712 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2006) (Iowa discovery rule: accrual when actual or imputed knowledge exists)
McClendon v. Beck, 569 N.W.2d 382 (Iowa 1997) (continuous‑treatment tolling in medical malpractice)
Ratcliff v. Graether, 697 N.W.2d 119 (Iowa 2005) (no tolling if plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known before treatment ended)
Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc. v. Morton Bldgs., 507 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993) (statute of repose runs from completion for certain improvements to real property)