Gross v. Max
906 F. Supp. 2d 802
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- Velma and Eugene Gross bought their home from Richard and Delores Max in 2006 and their daughter Sierra was born in 2008.
- Sierra’s lead poisoning was discovered in 2009, prompting the Grosses to file a RLPHRA claim on November 9, 2011.
- The court previously dismissed the case as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) in an August 2, 2012 Opinion and Order.
- The Grosses moved for reconsideration arguing that discovery and tolling principles could render their claim timely.
- The judge ultimately reaffirmed that the claims are time-barred, denying the motion for reconsideration after analyzing discovery rule and tolling doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the discovery rule apply to §1658(a) and RLPHRA? | Grosses argue discovery rule applies to 1658(a) and RLPHRA. | Maxes argue discovery rule does not apply to these provisions. | Discovery rule does not apply. |
| Does equitable tolling apply to extend the limitations period? | Equitable tolling should extend the period after discovery on Aug 18, 2009. | No tolling; delays were not extraordinary. | Equitable tolling does not apply. |
| When did the claim accrue for accrual under RLPHRA and §1658(a)? | Accrual may be delayed until discovery, i.e., Aug 18, 2009. | Accrual occurred on Nov 10, 2006 when the Grosses took title and did not receive disclosures. | Accrual is 2006; discovery rule does not apply to tolled accrual. |
| Is Randall v. City of Laconia controlling for discovery and accrual analysis here? | Randall supports discovery or other tolling for timely filing. | Randall is not directly applicable; must analyze text/context/history. | Randall not controlling; analysis restarts under baseline principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.1990) (discovery rule as default under federal common law; later limited)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (discovery rule not universal; context-specific analysis required)
- Koenig v. S.E.C., 557 F.3d 736 (7th Cir.2009) (text, context, and history govern discovery rule applicability)
- Cooper v. U.S., 442 F.2d 908 (7th Cir.1971) (baseline for when injury becomes apparent; case-by-case analysis)
- Stoleson v. United States, 629 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir.1980) (discovery rule depends on the nature of the injury and its discovery)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (injury that is inherently unknowable may trigger discovery rule)