Louise Williams v. Borough of Highland Park, 707 F. App'x 72

In March 2012 Highland Park enacted an ordinance requiring property owners/occupants to maintain sidewalks; failure to comply could lead to summonses, the Borough performing the work, and liens for costs.
In May–June 2012 the Borough sent notices to residents (including Williams and Feuerwerker) stating they had 60 days to obtain permits and repair sidewalks or face summonses; Feuerwerker enrolled in a Borough repayment program in 2012.
Williams received a summons in June 2014 and paid a contractor to replace her sidewalk; the Borough issued invoices to program participants (including Feuerwerker) in June 2015 and he made at least one installment payment.
Williams and Feuerwerker filed a § 1983 suit (Fourteenth Amendment due process) and state-law claims on September 16, 2015; the district court dismissed the § 1983 claims as time-barred and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and held the due process claims accrued in May–June 2012 when the plaintiffs received official notice of noncompliance; the two-year New Jersey statute of limitations therefore expired by June 2014 and the September 2015 suit was untimely.
The court rejected plaintiffs’ continuing-violation theory (post-2012 summonses/invoices were consequential effects, not new wrongful acts) and declined to consider forfeited equitable-tolling arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did § 1983 due-process claims accrue?	Accrual occurred later (Williams: June 2014 summons; Feuerwerker: 2015 invoice)	Accrual occurred when plaintiffs received official 2012 notices of noncompliance	Accrued in May–June 2012 when plaintiffs had reason to know of their injury; claims time-barred
Applicable limitations period	(Implicit) two-year New Jersey personal-injury period governs	Two-year New Jersey statute applies to § 1983 claims	Two-year New Jersey statute applies; limitations expired by June 2014
Continuing-violation doctrine	Later summonses/invoices were continuing wrongful acts that reset limitations	Later actions were consequences of the 2012 violation, not fresh unlawful acts	Continuing-violation doctrine does not apply; later acts were ill effects, not separate unlawful acts
Equitable tolling (forfeited below)	Tolling should apply to save claims (raised on appeal)	Plaintiffs forfeited the argument by not raising it below; no manifest-injustice exception	Forfeited issue; appellate court declines to consider equitable tolling

Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 769 F.3d 850 (3d Cir. 2014) (apply state personal-injury limitations to § 1983 claims)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual of § 1983 claim occurs when wrongful act results in damages and plaintiff can sue)
Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (accrual when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001) (distinguishes continual unlawful acts from continuing ill effects for continuing-violation analysis)
Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283 (3d Cir. 1991) (continuing-practice rule and limits on invoking continuing violations doctrine)