National RR Passenger Corp. v. Notter

Decision Date08 October 1987
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 86-1278 SSH.
Citation677 F. Supp. 1
PartiesNATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. George M. NOTTER, Jr., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

677 F. Supp. 1

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
George M. NOTTER, Jr., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 86-1278 SSH.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

October 8, 1987.


677 F. Supp. 2

T. Michael Kerrine, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Michael Evan Jaffe, Steven P. Ward, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment,

677 F. Supp. 3
plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents, defendant's motion to extend discovery, and defendant's motion to compel deposit of rent. Upon consideration of the motion for summary judgment, the opposition thereto, and the entire record, the Court concludes (1) that some, but not all, of plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, (2) that the motions to compel should be denied, and (3) that a limited extension of discovery is appropriate

Background

On September 26, 1976, plaintiff National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), a District of Columbia corporation, and Union Station Associates of New London (USANL), a Connecticut limited partnership, executed a lease under which Amtrak was to pay USANL approximately $45,000 annually, plus a portion of taxes and operating expenses, in exchange for the right to use a portion of the Union Railroad Station in New London, Connecticut (Union Station), as a passenger rail station. The lease was to expire on the later of April 30, 1996, or 20 years after the date on which Amtrak was able to occupy the station. In January of 1977, Amtrak and USANL executed an additional agreement, under which Amtrak agreed to pay for, and USANL agreed to provide, janitorial services in addition to those required under the lease. The defendant, George M. Notter, Jr., a Massachusetts citizen, is USANL's general partner.1

On May 10, 1978, USANL leased a portion of Union Station to the United States Government for use as an armed forces recruiting facility. The Government took possession of that portion in August of 1978. Although Notter did not inform Amtrak officials in Washington, D.C., of that lease, it is undisputed that Amtrak employees at Union Station were aware of the Government's occupancy.

Amtrak's Senior Real Estate Officer in Washington learned of the Government lease "sometime after the Spring of 1984." Affidavit of Mary Ann Trueman at 1. In 1985, Amtrak, exercising authority granted by its lease, conducted an audit of USANL's financial records. As a result of that audit, Amtrak officials in Washington, D.C., concluded that USANL had breached both the lease with Amtrak and the contract for additional janitorial services.

On May 5, 1986, pursuant to the terms of its lease with USANL, Amtrak initiated private arbitration, claiming that Amtrak had been overcharged for operating expenses. On May 8, 1986, Amtrak filed this lawsuit, alleging that a portion of the space leased by USANL to the Government previously had been leased to Amtrak, and that USANL had billed Amtrak for more janitorial services than USANL actually provided. Amtrak claimed constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and breach of the supplemental janitorial contract. In June of 1986, the parties agreed to withdraw the request for arbitration of the operating expense overcharge claim, and to consolidate that claim with this action. On June 16, 1986, Amtrak filed an amended complaint, adding the overcharge claim. Notter has counterclaimed, alleging that Amtrak has breached both the lease and the supplemental cleaning contract by failing to pay the full amounts due under those agreements.

Discussion

Notter moves for summary judgment on the grounds that all of Amtrak's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and, alternatively, that Amtrak cannot state a claim for constructive eviction. Also pending are Amtrak's motion to compel production of copies of documents previously inspected by Amtrak, and Notter's motion to extend the discovery period. The Court addresses each motion in turn.

I. Notter's Motion for Summary Judgment

Because subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims is based on diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

677 F. Supp. 4
the Court must apply the law that would be applied in the District of Columbia courts, see Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), including the statute of limitations that would be applied by those courts. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 112, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1471, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945). When, as here, this Court must choose between the statutes of limitations of two or more jurisdictions, the Court must do so according to the choice-of-law rules applied in the District of Columbia courts. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021-22, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)

In this case, the Court must determine preliminarily whether the laws of Connecticut or the laws of the District of Columbia supply the statute of limitations applicable to Amtrak's claims. Because the District of Columbia courts would hold that the statute of limitations issue is procedural and therefore governed by forum law, see Hodge v. Southern Railway Co., 415 A.2d 543, 544 (D.C.1980); May Department Stores v. Devercelli, 314 A.2d 767, 773 (D.C.1973), this Court will do so as well. See Banks v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 802 F.2d 1416, 1429 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1986); Hoffa v. Fitzsimmons, 673 F.2d 1345, 1360 n. 41 (D.C.Cir.1982). Accordingly, the Court holds that the relevant District of Columbia statute of limitations — D.C.Code § 12-301 — applies to this case.2

In its amended complaint, Amtrak charges Notter with breach of the supplemental janitorial agreement, as well as three breaches of the Union Station lease. Under D.C.Code § 12-301(7), the contract claim is subject to a three-year limitation period. Similarly, the District of Columbia courts impose a three-year limitation period on breach of lease claims. See Hines v. John B. Sharkey Co., 449 A.2d 1092, 1094 n. 4 (D.C.1982); Management Partnership, Inc. v. Crumlin, 423 A.2d 939, 942 n.* (D.C.1980).3

It is well established that the statute of limitations ordinarily begins to run from the time at which all elements of the plaintiff's cause of action exist. S. Freedman & Sons v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 396 A.2d 195, 198 (D.C.1978). Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run on Amtrak's claims for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and for constructive eviction in August of 1978, when the Government occupied the disputed space in Union Station. See, e.g., St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Owen, 452 So.2d 482, 485 (Ala.1984); Rajchandra Corp. v. Tom Sawyer Motor Inns, Inc., 106 A.D.2d 798, 484 N.Y.S.2d 257, 261 (1984). Consequently, those claims became time-barred in August of 1981.

Similarly, the three-year limitations period applicable to any breach of the contract for additional janitorial services began to run when USANL breached the contract. Ehrenhaft v. Malcolm Price, Inc., 483 A.2d 1192, 1198 (D.C.1984). Although the Court's analysis is severely hampered by the fact that neither party has supplied the Court with a copy of the supplemental agreement, it cannot agree with defendant's suggestion that the limitation period should be measured from the

677 F. Supp. 5
date in 1978 on which USANL subcontracted with another company, Southeastern Enterprises, for additional janitorial services. The nature of USANL's subsidiary arrangements to meet its contractual obligations to Amtrak, and the date on which those arrangements were made, are irrelevant to whether USANL actually provided the required janitorial services. Rather, USANL breached the contract with Amtrak, if ever, when it failed to provide the additional services. Moreover, where a contract obligates one party to perform a series of acts, and provides for a corresponding series of payments in consideration thereof, each failure to perform may be considered a separate, partial breach of contract. See William J. Davis, Inc. v. Young, 412 A.2d 1187, 1191 (D.C.1980); Le John Mfg. Co. v. Webb, 91 A.2d 332, 335 (D.C.Cir.1952); see generally 4 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts §§ 950-51 (1951); 11 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1294 (1968). In the context of this case, a partial breach would have occurred each time USANL billed Amtrak for janitorial services not performed. Since the parties refer to the janitorial contract in terms of monthly installments, it is possible that some of Amtrak's claims are not time-barred. On the basis of the record now before it, the Court cannot hold that no cause of action for breach of the supplemental janitorial contract accrued to Amtrak on or after May 8, 1983.4

A similar, though slightly more involved, analysis applies to Amtrak's claim that USANL overcharged for operating expenses due under the lease. As an obligation that occurred periodically, a separate cause of action would have accrued each time USANL billed Amtrak for expenses not properly owed. However, this claim differs from the janitorial agreement claim because Amtrak initially sought to resolve the matter through private arbitration, as required by Article VI, Section (c), of the lease. Although the arbitration process was commenced on May 5, 1986, the claim was not added to the complaint until June 16, 1986....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hall v. Burger King Corp., Civil A. No. 89-0260-Civ-Kehoe.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • November 13, 1995
    ...682, 683 (D.D.C.1951)); see also Computer Data Sys., Inc. v. Kleinberg, 759 F.Supp. 10, 15 (D.D.C. 1990); National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter, 677 F.Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C.1987). As noted above, since that forum is the District of Columbia, its statutes of limitations must be 80. Under the l......
  • Jones v. Meridian Towers Apartments, Inc., Civ. A. No. 90-2314 SSH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 23, 1993
    ..."`any statement, word or act which tends to suppress the truth raises the suppression to that level.'" National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter, 677 F.Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C.1987) (quoting Jackson v. Combs, 18 D.C. (7 Mackey) 608 (1888)). Among the undisputed facts or material facts in dispute fr......
  • Shafnacker v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 14, 1997
    ...because the arbitrator lacked authority to provide complete relief." [Citations omitted.] ); National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter, 677 F.Supp. 1, 5 (D.D.C.1987) ("Courts have the equitable authority to toll the statute of limitations while a matter is referred to arbitration ..."). Factu......
  • National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Lexington Ins.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 16, 2005
    ...this jurisdiction's procedural laws, including its three-year statute of limitations for contract claims. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter, 677 F.Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C.1987) (three-year statute of limitations applied to contract case brought in diversity because District of Columbia cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Compel, resist and amend discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Handling Federal Discovery
    • May 1, 2022
    ...U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120007, *4-5 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2015). c. Expectation of outstanding discovery. National R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter , 677 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1987). d. Unforeseen discovery needs. Peschke Map Techs., LLC v. J.J. Gumberg Co. , 40 F. Supp. 3d 393 (D. Del. 2014) (pending dec......
  • Compel, resist and amend discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2021 Contents
    • July 31, 2021
    ...U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120007, *4-5 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2015). c. Expectation of outstanding discovery. National R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter , 677 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1987). d. Unforeseen discovery needs. Peschke Map Techs., LLC v. J.J. Gumberg Co. , 40 F. Supp. 3d 393 (D. Del. 2014) (pending dec......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...Theater Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distrib. Co ., 748 F.2d 602 (11th Cir. 1984), §4:121 Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter , 677 F.Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1987), §4:129.2 Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Winchester Homes, Inc. , 15 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir. 1994), §2:35 Preparing for Trial in Federal C......
  • Compel, resist and amend discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2019 Contents
    • August 8, 2019
    ...U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120007, *4-5 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2015). c. Expectation of outstanding discovery. National R. Passenger Corp. v. Notter , 677 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1987). d. Unforeseen discovery needs. Peschke Map Techs., LLC v. J.J. Gumberg Co. , 40 F. Supp. 3d 393 (D. Del. 2014) (pending dec......
  • 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