Brawner v. Education Management Corp., 021313 FED3, 12-3255

Docket Nº:12-3255
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:JAMES BRAWNER, III, Appellant. v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al.; ART INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.; CONGRESSMAN CHAKA FATTAH; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ACICS; ACCST; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 13, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JAMES BRAWNER, III, Appellant.

v.

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al.; ART INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.; CONGRESSMAN CHAKA FATTAH; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ACICS; ACCST; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 12-3255

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

February 13, 2013

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 3, 2013

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2:11-cv-06131) District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In September 2011, appellant James Brawner filed a lawsuit based on his unsatisfactory experience with the Art Institute of Philadelphia, which he attended in the late 1990s and sporadically thereafter. He named federal, state, and private defendants, and alleged fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. The District Court dismissed his claims against the governmental defendants for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed his claims against the private defendants as barred by the statute of limitations. See generally Brawner v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., No. 11-6131, 2012 WL 3064019 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2012). Brawner appeals only the dismissal of his claims against the private defendants and has expressly abandoned his claims against the federal and state defendants. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.1

"State tolling principles 'are generally to be used by a federal court when it is applying a state limitations period;' therefore, we look to Pennsylvania law, predicting how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would resolve the statute of limitations issue." Knopick v. Connelly, 639 F.3d 600, 606 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d 117, 128 (3d Cir. 2003) and citing Jewelcor Inc. v. Karfunkel, 517 F.3d 672, 676 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008)). In Pennsylvania, the limitations periods for fraud, negligence, and breach of contract claims are two years, two years, and four years, respectively. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5524(7), 5525(a); see also Ash v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 877, 879-80 (Pa. 2007). "Generally, a statute of limitations period begins to run when a cause of action accrues; i.e., when an injury is inflicted and the corresponding right to institute a suit for damages arises." Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 479, 484 (Pa. 2011). When...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP