SAINI v. ARROW TRUCK SALES, 2:20-cv-00138

Saini, a New Jersey resident, worked as a salesperson at Arrow Truck Sales' Elizabeth, NJ branch from August 2013 until his termination on December 5, 2017.
Saini alleges repeated racist and harassing conduct by his supervisors (Pinheiro and Tanjavur), and that he complained to branch management and HR; he requested a transfer in October 2017.
Saini claims supervisors learned he intended to complain to Arrow's CEO and then manufactured false allegations about his November 2017 sales to prevent him from attending an awards ceremony.
Saini was investigated for alleged manipulation of incentive bonuses and was terminated on December 5, 2017; Arrow later submitted a position statement to the NJ Division on Civil Rights in 2018.
In a Second Amended Complaint filed May 10, 2021, Saini added Count Four: slander/defamation based on statements by his supervisors and Arrow; Arrow moved to dismiss that count under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as time-barred.
Saini argued the one-year statute of limitations should be tolled until early 2021 (after a deposition) and alternatively asked the court to treat the claim as malicious interference; the court rejected both arguments and dismissed Count Four as time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of defamation claim under NJ one-year statute	Saini: discovery rule/tolling applies; he could not prove defamation until a 2021 deposition	Arrow: publications occurred in Dec 2017/2018 and are outside the one-year period; NJ law bars discovery-rule tolling	Dismissed — claim time-barred; NJ law requires defamation suits within one year of publication (no discovery tolling)
Recasting claim as malicious interference	Saini: court should treat Count Four as malicious interference instead of defamation	Arrow: Count Four pleads defamation and is time-barred; conversion is improper on this motion	Denied — court declined to convert; Saini may assert a new claim separately if timely and appropriate

Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) (movant bears burden on a 12(b)(6) motion)
Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2011) (complaint allegations must be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions; pleading must be plausible)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2017) (statute-of-limitations defenses may be decided on the face of the complaint when apparent)
Nuwave Inv. Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co., 221 N.J. 495 (2015) (New Jersey rejects discovery-rule tolling for defamation claims)