Author: Elizabeth Gallo

Statute of Limitation versus Statute of Repose

Both statutes of limitations and statutes of repose are state laws that govern the time limits allowable under the law for a plaintiff to file a civil lawsuit. There are, however, a few key differences that every attorney should know.

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations is the time limit that a state places on a plaintiff’s right to seek a legal remedy by filing a lawsuit after suffering some type of harm. These time frames are generally expressed in years and the deadlines set often depend upon the type of case that is being filed in court. Of note, once the statute of limitations deadline has passed, the case is forever barred. There are two different types of statutes of limitations — those that apply to criminal cases and those that apply to civil cases. Most statutes of limitations apply to civil cases because most crimes, except for petty crimes or misdemeanors, do not have statutes of limitations.

Not only do statutes of limitations have two types, but claims are subject to two different statutes of limitations depending on the court where the case is filed. There are federal statutes of limitations for federal law-governed cases, as well as state statutes of limitations for state law-governed cases. Generally speaking, most state-imposed statutes of limitations range from one to six years. Common statutes of limitations in civil cases include breach of contract, debts, personal injury, libel or slander, property damage, as well as fraud and misrepresentation, to name a few.

Statutes of Repose

 Like a statute of limitations, which sets the time limit a plaintiff can file a lawsuit from the date of the incident, a statute of repose terminates certain legal rights if they are not acted on by a specific deadline. The deadline could be based on the passage of time or the occurrence of a specific event that itself does not cause someone harm or does not give rise to a lawsuit. Generally, statutes of repose apply to specific types of cases that are injury-related. Common cases in which statutes of repose apply include medical malpractice, construction defects, and product liability.

Know Your Deadlines

 If you are handling a lawsuit for a client, be sure to make yourself aware of statutes of limitations and statutes that apply to the case. Each state has its own statutes, so legal research is key.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to allow a lawsuit proceed against Apple, Inc., accusing the company of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market. The allegations are that iPhone monopolized the market for its software applications and caused consumers to overpay. After an hour of oral arguments in an appeal by a California-based technology company Cupertino, the justices decided to revive a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in California federal court in 2011 by a group of iPhone consumers seeking monetary damages.

The Court’s Reasoning

The case may be based on how the justices apply one of the Court’s prior decisions from 1997 to claims against Apple. In that case, the Court limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those who were directly overcharged instead of indirect victims that paid an overcharged passed on by others.

Apple, and the U.S. Solicitor General, argued that consumers were not directly affected by purchasing the apps from the company. Attorneys for the iPhone users argue that Apple’s monopoly causes inflated prices in comparison to if the apps were sold through other sources.

How it Works

While app developers set their own prices for their apps, Apple collects the payments from iPhone uses and keeps a 30% commission on every transaction. One issue in dispute is whether or not the app developers recuperate the commission charged by passing on the costs to consumers. According to Apple, app developers earned more than $26 billion in 2017 – a 30% increase over the prior year’s revenues.

The Lawsuit 

The California class-action lawsuit alleged Apple violated federal antitrust laws by mandating apps be sold through the company’s App Store while taking 30% commission from the app purchases. Apple sought to have the antitrust lawsuit dismissed, arguing the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the claims. A California federal judge in Oakland dismissed the lawsuit, holding that iPhone consumers were not direct purchasers because the app developers passed on the higher fees to them. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, revived the class action lawsuit last year holding Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to its consumers.

A federal judge in Detroit held that Congress has no authority to ban female genital mutilation. The decision resulted in the dismissal of charges regarding the procedure against eight individuals. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Congress did not have authority under the commerce clause to ban female genital mutilation because the procedure does not affect interstate commerce. Several news media reported the decision including the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News and the Associated Press.

Understanding the Procedure

Common in some parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, female genital mutilation is a procedure that is said to be part of a religious custom for girls in a Muslim sect known as the Dawoodi Bohra. The purpose of female genital mutilation is to ensure girls remain virgins until marriage. The procedure is also purposed to discourage adultery, according to reports. The federal ban on female genital mutilation was born in 1996 and backed by then Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.

The Arguments for the Federal Ban

Two arguments were put forth by the government in support of the federal ban’s constitutionality. The first argument was that Congress has the power to pass the female genital mutilation ban under a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1992. The treaty, according to the government, calls on member countries to provide political and civil rights to men and women and also calls for protection of minors on a non-discriminatory basis. The court found no logical relationship between the treaty and the ban on female genital mutilation. Alternatively, even if the court did find a relationship between the two, it noted that federalism does not allow Congress to enact the ban.

The government’s second argument was that the commerce clause granted Congress authority to ban female genital mutilation. The court also rejected this argument, stating that the procedure could not be classified as an economic or commercial activity. Citing to a U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in United States v. Morrison, the court noted this procedure can not be distinguished from other gender-motivated crimes of violence, which the SCOTUS found not to be part of the interstate market.

The Defendants

The defendants in the case included two Michigan doctors, one who allegedly performed female genital mutilation procedures on nine girls and the other who allowed the procedures to take place in his clinic. Additionally, four mothers who took their daughters for the procedure were charged as well the wife of one of the doctors and a worker who assisted in the surgeries. The court left obstruction charges in place against the defendants, which can carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Other criminal charges against the defendants remained in place including conspiracy with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct defined as the intentional touching of another under the age of 16 with the intent to abuse, degrade, or harass; this charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

While Michigan is one of 27 states in the nation that have laws on the books banning female genital mutilation, its law was passed to later to apply to the case at hand.

The City Council of Austin, Texas enacted a paid sick and safe leave ordinance (“Ordinance”) in February of 2018. The Texas Appellate court, however, found the law to be unconstitutional.

Austin’s Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance

As the name implies, the Ordinance would have required employers to provide paid sick and safe leave to its workers. Under the law, employers with 15 or more workers had to provide eight days of paid leave; companies with fewer than 15 employees had to provide six days of sick leave. The law was scheduled to become effective October 1, 2018 for employers with five or more employees and on October 1, 2020 for employers with less employees. Employees who work a minimum of 80 hours in Austin in a calendar year would be covered under the Ordinance.

The Ordinance allowed paid sick and safe leave can be used for an employee’s:

• Own physical or mental illness or injury, preventative medical or health care, or health condition;
• Care for a family member with a physical or mental illness, preventative medical or health care, injury or health condition; and
• Need to seek medical attention, seek relocation, obtain services of a victim services organization, or to participate in legal or court ordered action related to an incident of victimization from domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking involving the employee or a family member.

Although employees must make a timely request for leave prior to taking the time off, employers may not deny a workers’ leave for an unforeseeable qualified absence.

With the ordinance Austin, Texas joins several county, state, and local governments that have enacted similar paid sick leave laws just in 2018.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

In Texas Association of Business et. al v. City of Austin, Texas the Appellate Court ordered the district court to grant a temporary injunction barring the implementation of the Ordinance. In its decision, the Court held the Texas Minimum Wage Act (“TMWA”) preempted the Ordinance and the state constitution bars city ordinances that conflict with state law. The TMWA prohibits municipalities from regulating wages for employers who are subject to minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Appellate Court noted the Ordinance regulated wages since it requires employers to pay employers for hours that are not worked, essentially raising the rate of pay for hours worked. Because the TMWA establishes a wage, the Appellate Court reasoned, the Ordinance violated the act and was unconstitutional.

The City of Austin argued that wages under TMWA referred only to payments made by employers to workers for compensation of their services and not additional benefits. The Appellate Court disagreed, noting wages did not necessary prohibit the inclusion of paid sick leave.