Ryan v. Streck, Inc.
309 Neb. 98
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Stacy Ryan received Streck shares in 1985 and, under a 2012 revised redemption agreement, Streck repurchased her shares based on the most recent JVA valuation.
- In June–August 2015 Ryan sued (state, then federal) alleging Streck undervalued her shares; the federal complaint included Securities Exchange Act claims plus state-law claims including breach of contract.
- The federal district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, finding Ryan’s complaint admitted the price matched the required JVA valuation; Ryan moved to alter/ amend based on newly discovered valuations/appraisals.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of many claims but remanded for limited consideration whether the newly discovered evidence could revive the breach of contract claim; on remand the federal court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state breach claim.
- Ryan refiled in Nebraska state court in March 2019; the state court dismissed the action as time-barred, concluding the limitations period was not tolled while the claim was pending in federal court.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the federal court had exercised supplemental jurisdiction until it declined on remand and that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolled the state statute of limitations while the claim was pending in federal court, so Ryan’s refiling was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Ryan’s state-law breach claim on remand | Yes — the breach claim was part of the same case and remained under the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction until it declined | No — because the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal claims, federal court could not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remanded breach claim | Held: Yes; the federal court had supplemental jurisdiction and retained authority until it chose to decline it |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolled the state statute of limitations while the claim was pending in federal court | §1367(d) tolled (stop the clock) during pendency; refiling in state court was timely | No tolling or only a 30-day grace; plaintiff could have pursued the state claim while federal suit was pending | Held: §1367(d) tolled the limitations period (courts follow Artis; the clock stopped while the claim was in federal court) |
| Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-201.01 tolled the limitations period | Argued it provided tolling/savings for refiling in state court | Streck argued state precedent prevented tolling for the voluntary dismissal or other limits applied | Held: Not reached — federal tolling under §1367(d) was dispositive |
| Whether the state court erred by sua sponte raising the statute-of-limitations defense | Ryan: trial court improperly raised an affirmative defense sua sponte | Streck: dismissal was proper where limitations were apparent on the face of the petition | Held: Not reached — resolved by finding the claim was tolled under §1367(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) (§1367(d) "tolled" a state limitations period — tolling means stopping the clock)
- Ryan v. Streck, Inc., 889 F.3d 499 (8th Cir. 2018) (appellate decision affirming dismissals in part and remanding limitedly to consider newly discovered evidence as to breach claim)
- Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (federal courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims)
- Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing factors and discretion for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Welsch v. Graves, 255 Neb. 62 (1998) (when limitations are apparent on the face of the petition, the petition fails to state a cause of action and is subject to demurrer)