Nativo v. Grand Union Co.
Decision Date | 01 October 1998 |
Citation | 717 A.2d 429,315 N.J.Super. 185 |
Parties | Carmela NATIVO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GRAND UNION COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Abrams, Gatta, Falvo & Sevrin, Ocean Township, for plaintiff-appellant (Douglas J. Gatta, on the brief).
Kiernan & Strenk, Morristown, for defendant-respondent (Charles A. Strenk, on the brief).
Before Judges LONG, WEFING and CARCHMAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WEFING, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Carmela Nativo was shopping in a Grand Union supermarket in Brick Township, New Jersey on August 30, 1994. She alleged she was injured when a can of dog food fell from a shelf and struck her. She retained counsel who, in September 1994, notified a Grand Union claims representative. In January 1995, approximately five months after the incident, Grand Union filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This filing, of course, triggered the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and precluded Ms. Nativo from instituting suit for her injuries. In May 1995, Ms. Nativo filed a Proof of Claim with the Bankruptcy Court. On July 3, 1996, the United States Bankruptcy Judge executed a Stipulation and Order which modified the automatic stay to the extent that plaintiff was permitted to litigate her claim against Grand Union. She agreed in return that she would not execute upon any judgment she might obtain but rather would file an amended Proof of Claim with the Bankruptcy Court within thirty days of any judgment. Appellant's counsel received a copy of this Stipulation and Order on July 19, 1996, forty-two days before the statute of limitations expired. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.
On September 6, 1996, seven days after the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff filed her complaint. In due course, Grand Union filed its answer and included the statute of limitations among its affirmative defenses. In May 1997, Grand Union filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed since it was untimely. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff has appealed. We are constrained to affirm.
Plaintiff's argument is two-fold: she contends that the operation of the statute of limitations was stayed by the bankruptcy proceeding and further that she should be allowed to proceed with her complaint for equitable reasons.
In support of her first position, she points to Section 108(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and several cases construing its language.
The statute provides in part:
Extension of time: [I]f applicable nonbankruptcy law ... fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy court on a claim against the debtor ... and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, then such period does not expire until the later of (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case, or (2) 30 days after notice of the termination or expiration of the [automatic] stay ....
We recognize that certain courts have construed that language to mean that a state's statute of limitations is tolled for the length of time that an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is in effect. Garbe Iron Works, Inc. v. Priester, 99 Ill.2d 84, 75 Ill.Dec. 428, 457 N.E.2d 422 (1983); Major Lumber Co. v. G & B Remodeling, Inc., 817 S.W.2d 474 (Mo.App.1991). We consider more persuasive, however, those authorities which have rejected such a view. Rogers v. Corrosion Products, Inc., 42 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1160, 115 S.Ct. 2614, 132 L. Ed.2d 857 (1995) ) ; Aslanidis v. United States Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067, 1073 (2nd Cir.1993) (). We are entirely unpersuaded by plaintiff's argument that the bankruptcy proceeding added anything to the limitations period because the limitations period had not expired when the July 3, 1996 Stipulation and Order were entered.
In support of her equitable argument, pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Bank of Commerce Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Ham, s. S-97-1120
...had run during the stay and the plaintiff failed to obtain relief from the stay in the bankruptcy court. In Nativo v. Grand Union Co., 315 N.J.Super. 185, 717 A.2d 429 (1998), the court held that neither § 108(c) nor applicable common-law principles operated to toll the state's personal inj......
-
Minelli v. Harrah's Resort Atl. City
...hearing argument, the Law Division dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Relying on our opinion in Nativo v. Grand Union Co., 315 N.J. Super. 185, 188, 717 A.2d 429 (App. Div. 1998), the court concluded that had plaintiffs filed their complaint before the limitations period expired, "then......
-
Everbank v. Tierney
...deadlines, even if already expired, running from the date of the notice of termination of the stay); see also Nativo v. Grand Union Co., 315 N.J. Super. 185, 188 (App. Div. 1998) (noting that the automatic stay does not toll the running of a statute of limitations; rather, a party has thirt......
- Nativo v. Grand Union Co., C-493