Grimes v. Suzukawa

Decision Date14 September 2001
Docket NumberRecord No. 002536.
Citation262 Va. 330,551 S.E.2d 644
PartiesCorinne GRIMES v. Ronald SUZUKAWA.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Phillip B. Leiser, Fairfax, for appellant.

Stephen G. Cochran (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, on brief), McLean, for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

HASSELL, Justice.

In this appeal, we consider whether a plaintiff, who filed an action alleging intentional torts against a defendant was entitled to rely upon the tolling provision contained in Code § 8.01-229(D).

Plaintiff, Corinne Gruber Grimes, filed her motion for judgment against the defendant, Ronald Suzukawa, on May 12, 2000. She alleged the following. On September 27, 1992, the plaintiff was threatened and sexually assaulted by the defendant, "who had broken and entered into her apartment at approximately 2:45 a.m." The defendant covered his face with a mask, entered the plaintiff's bedroom, and threatened to hurt her if she screamed. The defendant bound the plaintiff's hands with a cord and sexually molested her.

The plaintiff alleged causes of action against the defendant for sexual assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages for her alleged injuries.

The defendant filed a responsive pleading and a plea in bar. He asserted in his pleadings that the plaintiff's causes of action arose on September 27, 1992, and that her actions were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

The plaintiff filed a memorandum in response to the defendant's plea in bar and asserted that her claims were tolled by Code § 8.01-229(D), which states in relevant part:

"When the filing of an action is obstructed by a defendant's . . . (ii) using any other direct or indirect means to obstruct the filing of an action, then the time that such obstruction has continued shall not be counted as any part of the period within which the action must be brought."

The plaintiff argued that she "had no way of knowing her assailant's identity until 16 July 1999 when [d]efendant confessed his crimes to the police [and, therefore,] she could not until then bring an action to redress the injuries that [d]efendant had deliberately inflicted upon her."

The litigants did not submit any evidence to the circuit court, which decided the case based on the pleadings, argument, and memoranda of counsel. The circuit court entered an order sustaining the defendant's plea in bar and dismissing the plaintiff's motion for judgment with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals.

On appeal, the plaintiff "concedes that her causes of action arose on 27 September 1992, more than seven years prior to the filing of her motion for judgment." The plaintiff also concedes that in the absence of an applicable statutory tolling provision, her claims are barred. However, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant deliberately concealed his identity from her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...498, 416 A.2d 862, 872-73 (1980); Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 2005 PA Super 246 ¶ 20; Grimes v. Suzukawa, 262 Va. 330, 332, 551 S.E.2d 664, 646 (2001). Concomitantly, the states hold with equal consistency that a plaintiff may not claim the protection of thi......
  • Puhalla v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 27, 2020
    ...N.E. 2d at 716 ); KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp. , 988 S.W. 2d 746, 750 (Tex. 1999) ; Grimes v. Suzukawa , 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E. 2d 644, 646 (Va. 2001).Here, as explained above, Plaintiffs’ numerous allegations detail Defendants’ knowledge of the risks posed by the Ta......
  • BYRD v. HOPSON, Civil No. 1:02CV212 (W.D.N.C. 7/30/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • July 30, 2003
    ...(Oh. 2003) (statute of limitations not tolled by any uncertainty as to the identity of victims' assailants); accord, Grimes v. Suzukawa, 551 S.E.2d 644 (Va. 2001); Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 565 N.W.2d 94 (Wis. 1997); K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. 1996); Bernson v. Browning-Ferr......
  • Doe v. Siddig
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 12, 2011
    ...Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C.Cir.1988), and Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 573 F.Supp.2d 16, 34 (D.D.C.2008), with Grimes v. Suzukawa, 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E.2d 644, 646 (2001). This task may be further complicated in this case because some of Doe's claims may require the Court to borrow the s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Summaries of 2006-2021 Changes
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...a default judgment based on an allegation of fraud upon the court; (ii) distinguished a new case on its facts from Grimes v. Suzukawa, 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E.2d 644 (2001) (a masked assailant was not wearing the mask in order to hinder the plaintiff's attempt to file suit), in a manner which ......
  • Summary of 2006-2018 Changes
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...a default judgment based on an allegation of fraud upon the court; (ii) distinguished a new case on its facts from Grimes v. Suzukawa, 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E.2d 644 (2001) (a masked assailant was not wearing the mask in order to hinder the plaintiff's attempt to file suit), in a manner which ......
  • Table of Authorities
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...F.2d 742 (4th Cir. 1988).................................................................................. 932, 1006 Grimes v. Suzukawa, 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E.2d 644 (2001)................................................................................ 249-251 Grundy Nat'l Bank v. Harman Inv......
  • 6.8 Tolling the Statute of Limitations
    • United States
    • Debt Collection for Virginia Lawyers: A Systematic Approach (Virginia CLE) Chapter 6 Improving the Client's Position
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 1301(a).[472] See 11 U.S.C. § 1201(a).[473] Restaurant Co. v. United Leasing Corp., 271 Va. 529, 628 S.E.2d 520 (2006).[474] Id.[475] 262 Va. 330, 551 S.E.2d 644 (2001).[476] 270 Va. 291, 618 S.E.2d 336 (2005).[477] 73 Va. Cir. 51 (Fairfax 2007).[478] 72 Va. Cir. 135 (Fairfax 2006).[479] ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT