Artis v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 07 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–CV–0243.,15–CV–0243.
• Citation: 135 A.3d 334
• Parties: Stephanie C. ARTIS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

135 A.3d 334

Stephanie C. ARTIS, Appellant

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 15–CV–0243.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued Feb. 2, 2016.

Decided April 7, 2016.

Donald M. Temple, Washington, DC, for appellant.

Donna M. Murasky, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the District of Columbia, with whom Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before FISHER and BLACKBURNE–RIGSBY, Associate Judges; and PRYOR, Senior Judge.

PRYOR

, Senior Judge:

Appellant, Stephanie Artis, asks us to reverse the trial court's ruling on appellee's, the District of Columbia (the District), motion to dismiss because, she argues, it misinterpreted the word “tolling” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)

, and, as a consequence, erroneously limited her time to file her claim in Superior Court. Jurisdictions differ as to the meaning of “tolling” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), and we consider the term to be ambiguous. In light of that ambiguity, we conclude that the “grace period” approach, advocated by the appellee, is more consistent with statute's context and purpose. Therefore, we affirm the judgment dismissing appellant's complaint as untimely.

I. Statement of Facts

Appellant's complaint arose from her November 15, 2010 termination from the District's Department of Health (DOH). Beginning in August 2007, appellant was employed, in a temporary status, as a DOH code inspector. A contentious relationship evolved with her supervisor, Gerard Brown, and she concluded he had singled her out for unfair treatment in the workplace. On April 17, 2009, appellant took her first administrative step against Mr. Brown and DOH by filing a discrimination claim before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While that claim was pending appellant also filed a series of grievances against Mr. Brown challenging several notices of proposed infractions against her and alleging that Brown violated other employee rights regulations.

On November 15, 2010, appellant discovered that DOH terminated her temporary employment as a code inspector. In January 2011, appellant filed a final grievance alleging her termination was retaliation for her strained relationship with the agency and Mr. Brown.

On December 16, 2011, appellant initiated a civil suit against the District in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Therein she alleged her termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964¹ and that the District Court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (1990)

to hear her claims based on the District's Whistleblower Act,² False Claims Act,³ and her common law claim for wrongful termination against public policy. See

Artis v. District of Columbia, 51 F.Supp.3d 135 (D.D.C.2014).

On June 27, 2014, the court granted the District's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to appellant's federal employment discrimination claim. Id. at 139–141. The court further found that since it dismissed the sole federal claim as facially deficient, it had no basis to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims arising under District of Columbia law. Id. at 141–42 (discussing discretionary nature of pendent jurisdiction) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)

).

On August 25, 2014, fifty-nine days after dismissal from federal district court, appellant filed her remaining claims in the Superior Court. In a motion for dismissal—or alternatively summary judgment—the District alleged appellant's claims were time barred based on the respective statutes of limitation and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)

. Artis v. District of Columbia, 2014–CA–005275B (January 29, 2014). The trial judge agreed, finding 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) does not suspend state statutes of limitations at the time of the unsuccessful federal filing, but rather creates a thirty-day period for a claimant to file actions over which the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction. Id.

II. Discussion

A.

It is necessary, in order to answer the question presented in this case, to resolve the meaning of “tolled” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)

. Appellant argues the trial court erroneously interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)'s plain language, which provides:

[t]he period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.

There were nearly two years remaining on the statute of limitations when appellant filed her suit in the United States District Court, and she asserts she had that period (plus thirty days) to file her claims in the Superior Court.

Thus, appellant urges us to adopt the reasoning of the Maryland Court of Appeals in Turner v. Kight, 406 Md. 167, 957 A.2d 984 (2008)

, and find that “tolled” means to suspend the local statute of limitations at the point the federal suit was filed. The District, relying primarily on the California Supreme Court's decision in City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 59 Cal.4th 618, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 67, 328 P.3d 56 (2014), instead urges us to affirm the trial court's finding that, in the context of the statute's language, purpose, and history, “tolled” means a thirty-day “grace period” will apply if the limitations period for the state based claims expires while the claim is pending in the federal court. Here, according to the District, the limitations period had expired while the federal suit was pending, so appellant had only thirty days to file in Superior Court. The District argues this fulfills Congress's intent by giving a litigant an opportunity to re-file claims over which the federal court lacked jurisdiction without requiring duplicative filings or infringing on the rights of states to establish their own statutes of limitation.

When interpreting statutory language, we must “look first to the plain language of a statute to determine its meaning, and favor interpretations consistent with the plain language....” Stevens v. ARCO Management of Washington, D.C., Inc., 751 A.2d 995, 998 (D.C.2000)

(citing Francis v. Recycling Solutions, Inc., 695 A.2d 63, 72 (D.C.1997) ; Downs v. District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement and Relief Bd., 666 A.2d 860, 861 (D.C.1995) ). “Where the plain meaning of the statutory language is unambiguous, the intent of the legislature is clear, and judicial inquiry need go no further.” Id.; see also

United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102–03, 18 S.Ct. 3, 42 L.Ed. 394 (1897) (“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that [it] has used.”). But, even if the words of a statute have “superficial clarity, a review of the legislative history or an in-depth consideration of alternative constructions that could be ascribed to statutory language may reveal ambiguities that the court must resolve.” Lincoln Hockey LLC v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 810 A.2d 862, 868 (D.C.2002) (citing Hively v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 681 A.2d 1158, 1161 (D.C.1996) ); see also

Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751, 753 (D.C.1983) (en banc) (if statute is ambiguous “our task is to search for an interpretation that makes sense of the statute and related laws as a whole[ ]”); Dolan v. United States Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 486, 126 S.Ct. 1252, 163 L.Ed.2d 1079 (2006) (“A word in a statute may or may not extend to the outer limits of its definitional possibilities.”).

B.

As stated, the parties have advanced two respective positions which are consistent with the competing approaches that have evolved nationally relating to the tolling provision of the statute presented. One interpretation is illustrated by Turner. In adopting the “suspension” approach, the Turner court, relying largely on the California Court of Appeal's decision in Bonifield v. County of Nevada, 94 Cal.App.4th 298, 303–04, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 (2001)

(quoting Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315, 279 Cal.Rptr. 613, 807 P.2d 455, 461 (1991) ), likened tolling to a “clock that is stopped and then restarted[,]” Turner, supra, 957 A.2d at 991, and reasoned that the Bonifield suspension approach was more consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Id. at 992 (citing Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 661, 103 S.Ct. 2611, 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983) (interpreting tolling statute in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to suspend, rather than renew, limitation period)); see also

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 755 N.W.2d 354 (Minn.App.2008)⁴ ; Oleski v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 822 A.2d 120, 124 (Pa.Cmwlth.Ct.2003).

On the other hand, a different approach is that the statute provides a thirty-day “grace period” “allowing claims that would otherwise have become barred to be pursued in state court if refiled no later than 30 days after federal court dismissal.”⁵ Cf. City of Los Angeles, supra, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 67, 328 P.3d at 58

(cited with approval in Gottschalk v. Woods, 329 Ga.App. 730, 766 S.E.2d 130, 136 (2014) ); see also

Weinrib v. Duncan, 962 So.2d 167 (Ala.2007) ; Dahl v. Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives, Inc., 843 So.2d 956 (Fla.App.2003) ; Berke v. Buckley Broad. Corp., 359 N.J.Super. 587, 821 A.2d 118 (App.Div.2003) ; Harter v. Vernon, 139 N.C.App. 85, 532 S.E.2d 836 (2000) ; Juan v. Commonwealth, 2001 WL 34883536 (N.Mar.I. Nov. 19, 2001).

Additionally, federal circuit courts of appeal that have analyzed the tolling provision of § 1367(d)

apparently agree that it provides a thirty-day grace period. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3rd Cir.2000) (finding § 1367(d) ensures plaintiff has “at least thirty days after dismissal to refile in state court”) (citing Seabrook v. Jacobson, 153 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir.1998) ; see also

Beck v. Prupis, 162 F.3d 1090, 1099–1100 (11th...