Yu v. Idaho State Univ., 444 P.3d 885

Jun Yu, a Chinese citizen, was dismissed from Idaho State University's (ISU) clinical psychology Ph.D. program; his final administrative appeal was denied on October 2, 2013.
Yu filed an Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) notice against ISU on March 10, 2014, then a federal suit alleging Title VI, Section 1983, emotional distress, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract claims; he amended pleadings after receiving expert reports in March 2016.
The federal district court dismissed 17 of 18 federal claims (based on Eleventh Amendment immunity) on January 26, 2018; the Title VI claim remained pending in federal court.
On February 21, 2018 Yu filed a nearly identical state-court suit adding six individual defendants (sued individually and officially) and reasserting the 17 dismissed claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply with ITCA and on statute-of-limitations grounds; the district court converted the motion to summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding ITCA noncompliance as to individuals and that federal Section 1983 and breach claims were time-barred.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal and awarded attorney fees to Defendants as the claims were unreasonably pursued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ITCA notice requirement bars all claims	Yu argued ITCA shouldn't bar his federal Section 1983 and contract claims	Defendants argued Yu failed ITCA notice as to individual defendants	Court: district court only applied ITCA to ITCA-subject claims against individuals; federal/contract claims were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, not ITCA noncompliance
Accrual date for Section 1983 claims	Yu: claim accrued upon receipt of expert reports (Mar 2016), so within limitations	Defs: accrual was when appeal was finally denied (Oct 2, 2013)	Court: accrual when plaintiff knew of injury and tortfeasor; Oct 2, 2013; Section 1983 claims time-barred under 2-year Idaho limit
Nature and limitations period for contract claims	Yu: written ISU policies created a written contract (5-year statute)	Defs: student-university relationship gives rise to implied contract (4-year statute)	Court: documents at best create implied contract; 4-year limit applies; breach claims accrued Oct 2, 2013 and are time-barred
Entitlement to attorney fees on appeal	Yu made no persuasive legal challenge to timeliness	Defs: sought fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 for frivolous/unreasonable suit	Court: awarded fees to Defendants because Yu unreasonably pursued untimely claims

Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342 (statutes of limitation promote repose and prevent stale claims)
Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442 (discovery rule and limitations on delayed accrual absent concealment)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual in Section 1983: when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (apply state statute of limitations to Section 1983 claims)
McCabe v. Craven, 145 Idaho 954 (Idaho applies two-year statute for Section 1983 actions)
Wickstrom v. N. Idaho Coll., 111 Idaho 450 (student–college relationship is contractual and usually implied)
Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382 (accrual when plaintiff knows injury and identity of tortfeasor)