Femala Fleming v. Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., 990 N.W.2d 244

From 1997–2000 Fleming, then 13–16, was coached by Shelton Kingcade in AAU-affiliated basketball; Kingcade later was criminally convicted for sexually assaulting a minor.
Fleming alleges AAU negligently hired, retained, and supervised Kingcade, and sued AAU for negligent hiring/retention/supervision.
Fleming filed a federal complaint on Nov. 1, 2019; she turned 35 on Nov. 4, 2019; the federal case was dismissed and she filed in state court on Aug. 31, 2020.
AAU moved to dismiss under the 3-year personal-injury limitations statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.54; Fleming argued the extended child-sexual-assault limitation, Wis. Stat. § 893.587 (until age 35), applied and that § 893.13 tolled the period while her federal case was pending.
The circuit court dismissed (applying § 893.54). The court of appeals reversed, holding § 893.587 and tolling under § 893.13 applied. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs the negligence claim against AAU: § 893.587 (extended age‑35 limit for injuries caused by certain child‑sex offenses) or § 893.54 (3‑year personal‑injury limit)?	Fleming: § 893.587 governs because her injury was caused by Kingcade’s enumerated sexual‑assault acts, so the extended age‑35 deadline applies to her suit against AAU.	AAU: § 893.587 does not apply to claims that are for a defendant’s negligent hiring/ supervision (non‑enumerated acts); the three‑year § 893.54 applies.	Held: § 893.587 does not apply to Fleming’s negligence claim against AAU; the claim is governed by § 893.54 (as extended by § 893.16) and is time‑barred.
If § 893.587 applied, would tolling under § 893.13 (toll while action pending and extend to 30 days after final disposition) revive Fleming’s claim?	Fleming: § 893.13 tolls any law limiting commencement of an action, so her federal filing tolled § 893.587 and she timely refiled in state court within 30 days.	AAU: § 893.587 is a statute of repose (not subject to tolling) or otherwise not tolled by § 893.13.	Held: Court did not decide tolling because it held § 893.587 does not apply; tolling issue was left unresolved.

Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 356 Wis. 2d 665 (accept facts from complaint and certain court records on motion to dismiss)
Saint John’s Communities, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 404 Wis. 2d 605 (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (principles of statutory interpretation; give words ordinary meaning)
Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 303 Wis. 2d 34 (distinguishing claims where § 893.587 applies; negligent supervision vs. fraud)
Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302 (accrual rule for negligence claims)
Hammer v. Hammer, 142 Wis. 2d 257 (discovery rule context that led to enactment of § 893.587)
Miller v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250 (causation framework for negligent hiring/training/supervision)
Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 245 Wis. 2d 1 (discussion of statute of repose vs. statute of limitations in tolling context)