BOSTON (CN) — Massachusetts litigants facing down deadlines can rest a little easier after a Friday morning ruling from the state’s Supreme Judicial Court adopting a broad interpretation of its own orders tolling civil statutes of limitations during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court issued orders regarding the tolling of statutes of limitations throughout the pandemic, opining that delays were justified by reduced access to the courts. In total, civil statutes of limitations in Massachusetts were tolled for 106 days, effectively stopping the clock from March 17 to June 30 of 2020.
In its Friday ruling on a personal injury case against a supermarket chain, the high court decided that the resulting 106-day grace period applied to all cases in the state.
The order affirmed a district court’s denial of the chain’s motion to dismiss customer Margarita Melendez’s suit against it alleging that she was knocked to the floor by a Sturbridge, Massachusetts, supermarket clerk wheeling a cart out of a storeroom at a Shaw’s Supermarkets location in 2017. The three-year statute of limitations would normally have expired on Sept. 3, 2020, but Melendez’s suit was filed on September 24.
Attorney Kristyn Kaupas of the Boston firm Kiernan Trebach argued on behalf of the grocer in April that cases whose filing deadline occurred after the conclusion of the midyear tolling period should not benefit from the extra 106-day delay, pointing out that a decision otherwise could impact deadlines as far out as 2026.
In an opinion penned by Judge Frank Gaziano, an appointee of Republican Governor Charlie Baker, the court rejected her reading of its orders.
“The phrase ‘all civil statutes of limitations’ is clear and unambiguous. As indicated by the use of the word “all,’ the plain meaning of these words encompasses each and every civil statute of limitations, not just those where the statutory period of limitation expired between March 17, 2020, and June 30, 2020,” Gaziano wrote.
“We adopted this broad tolling order cognizant of the challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has engendered not only for the judiciary and court staff, but also for attorneys and litigants considering the initiation of legal action,” the judge added. “In light of ongoing state and local restrictions imposed to combat the spread of Covid-19 , and the effect of such restrictions on the ability of attorneys and litigants to prepare civil claims, we decline Shaw’s request that we narrow our order.”
“‘All’ means all,” he concluded, echoing a statement made by Melendez’s attorney, Michael Caplette of Southbridge, during oral arguments.
Caplette, speaking after the ruling, said he appreciated the court’s consideration of the myriad impacts Covid-19 had on the lives of those involved in the legal system.
“We’re very pleased by the result. I have a 78-year-old client who’s been waiting a long time for justice,” he said. “It’s very comforting, I guess is the best word, seeing the SJC reflecting the impact of Covid not just on the judicial system as an entity but the impact on the lives of the litigants and the lawyers.”
The delay in filing, Caplette said, stemmed in part from Melendez’s condition and from the stresses put on the medical system by the virus.
“The event occurred in September of ‘17. As we got further along, Ms. Melendez had continued medical treatment, and as we got to September of ‘20, I was unclear where she stood medically,” he said. “It wasn’t as important that we get a file on time as it was to know where Ms. Melendez was medically.”
The pandemic, too, pushed that date back. “It was hard to get records, and hard to get information at the time, because… the medical system was having some problems,” Caplette said.
The decision could have a nationwide impact. Twenty-five states tolled their statutes of limitations at some point during the pandemic, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
The Massachusetts court noted that it was aware of no other court that had addressed the issue. A federal court in Colorado took on a similar case, however, when it refused to extend a limitations period on “equitable” grounds without any court order or statute to make the pause official.
Kaupas did not return a request for comment, nor did Shaw’s parent company, Albertsons Companies.
from Courthouse News
