Ryan v. Streck, Inc., 958 N.W.2d 703

Background

Stacy Ryan owned Streck shares repurchased in 2012 under a revised redemption agreement tying price to the most recent Juris Valuation Advisors (JVA) appraisal; she alleged undervaluation.
Ryan sued in Nebraska state court in June 2015, voluntarily dismissed, then filed in federal court (Aug 2015) raising federal securities claims and several state-law claims including breach of contract.
The federal district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim; Ryan sought to amend based on newly discovered evidence and appealed when amendment was denied.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed most dismissals but remanded for limited consideration of whether newly discovered evidence warranted reconsideration of the breach‑of‑contract dismissal.
On remand the federal court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the breach claim and dismissed it (Sept 2018); Ryan refiled in Sarpy County state court in March 2019.
The state court dismissed the refiling as time‑barred; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding §1367(d) tolled the limitations period while the breach claim was pending in federal court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ryan's state breach claim while it was litigating the related federal claims?	Yes — the federal court had and continued supplemental jurisdiction until it chose to decline it on remand.	No — once the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal claims, the federal court could not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the breach claim.	Held: Federal court did have supplemental jurisdiction over the breach claim and retained authority until it declined to exercise it on remand.
Did 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) toll the state statute of limitations while the claim was pending in federal court?	Yes — §1367(d) tolls (stops the clock) for any claim asserted under subsection (a) while pending in federal court.	No — tolled only gives a 30‑day grace period; it does not stop the clock during federal proceedings.	Held: §1367(d) tolls the limitations period (stops the clock) while the claim was pending; Ryan timely refiled.
Did Nebraska’s §25‑201.01 toll the limitations period while the claim was pending in federal court?	Ryan raised it as an alternative tolling basis.	Streck argued Ryan could have refiled earlier under state law and cited precedent.	Held: Court did not decide because federal tolling under §1367(d) resolved timeliness.
Did the state court err by raising statute‑of‑limitations sua sponte and dismissing the complaint?	Argued court improperly raised an affirmative defense on its own.	Streck relied on pleading defects and timeliness.	Held: Not reached — Court declined to address because §1367(d) tolling made the claim timely.

Key Cases Cited

Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (U.S. 2018) (§1367(d) tolling means stop the clock; limitations tolled while claim pending in federal court)
Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (district courts have broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims)
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizing discretionary nature of exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1983) (statutory use of “may” generally connotes discretion)
Welsch v. Graves, 255 Neb. 62 (1998) (when petition plainly shows statute of limitations bars action, petition fails to state a cause of action)