Randall v. LACONIA, NH
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9338
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- In 1998 the City of Laconia purchased a pre-1978 home that had a Lead Paint Inspection Report (Alpha report) indicating lead hazards and kept a copy in Library files.
- When Randall contracted to buy the home in 2003, he received a blank lead-based paint disclosure form but the City never completed it or provided the Alpha report before closing.
- Randall signed the blank disclosure form; his buyer's agent stated the City would complete it, but it never did, and Randall did not obtain an independent lead inspection.
- Randall closed on July 22, 2003 and moved in with his wife and two children; lead-based paint hazards were later identified in 2008 after his son had elevated blood lead levels.
- New Hampshire inspected the property in October 2008, confirming lead hazards and recommending elimination or control measures.
- Randall filed suit on February 9, 2010 under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, alleging the City failed to disclose lead hazards and provide reports; the City moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which limitations period applies? | Randall argues federal four-year limit. | City argues NH three-year limit. | Court assumes NH three-year limit applies for purposes here. |
| Is the Alpha report a separate cause of action with its own accrual? | Randall treats failure to hand over the Alpha report as a separate violation with its own accrual. | City contends not; multiple requirements yield a single claim. | Not a separate cause of action; single claim accrues from the closing. |
| When did Randall's cause of action accrue? | Accrual should occur based on discovery of facts. | Accrual at the time of injury, i.e., closing on July 22, 2003. | Accrued on July 22, 2003. |
| Does a discovery rule toll the limitations period here? | Discovery could toll accrual until facts were discovered. | Discovery rule not applicable to alter accrual here. | Discovery rule does not change accrual; still July 22, 2003. |
| Is the suit timely under the applicable limitations period? | Would-be timely if under a longer period; | Six-and-a-half years elapsed since accrual. | Untimely under the three-year NH limit; district court affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenwood ex rel. Estate of Greenwood v. N.H. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 527 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008) (accrual under civil actions; complete and present cause of action)
- Gorelik v. Costin, 605 F.3d 118 (1st Cir. 2010) (accrual when plaintiff knows or has reason to know injury)
- Donahue v. United States, 634 F.3d 615 (1st Cir. 2011) (claims accrue generally at time of injury; discovery rule context)
- Epstein v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 460 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2006) (discovery rule and inquiry notice concepts in accrual)
- Feddersen v. Garvey, 427 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2005) (discovery rule not tolling full extent of injury)
- Callahan v. United States, 426 F.3d 444 (1st Cir. 2005) (inquiry notice standard in accrual analysis)
- Mason ex rel. Heiser v. Morrisette, 403 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (lead paint disclosure purpose and pre-contract timing)