APPLE’S STATE LAW VARIATIONS 

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK (NC) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

R. Alexander Pilmer (SBN 166196) 

Tanya L. Greene (SBN 267975) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

333 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 680-8400 

Facsimile (213) 680-8500 

Email: alexander.pilmer@kirkland.com 

 tanya.greene@kirkland.com 

Joseph A. Loy (admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Email: joseph.loy@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Apple Inc. 

Joshua H. Lerner (SBN 220755) 

Sonal N. Mehta (SBN 222086) 

Eugene Novikov (SBN 257849) 

Stephen Elkind (admitted pro hac vice) 

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 362-6666 

Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 

Email: jlerner@durietangri.com 

 smehta@durietangri.com 

 enovikov@durietangri.com 

 selkind@durietangri.com 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, 

Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

APPLE INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK (NC) 

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S STATE 

LAW VARIATIONS APPENDIX IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Dept.: Courtroom 8—4th Floor 

Date: August 2, 2018 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 31
State Law Variations in Consumer Protection St

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Alabama (Alabama Code § 8-19-1 et seq.) 

Not by consumers, only by AG. Ala. Code Tit. 8 § 8-19-10(f). 

Yes. Monetary damage required. Ala. Code § 8-19-10. 

Yes. "Any person against whom any civil action or proceeding is brought pursuant to this chapter shall have a defense to such action or proceeding upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence presented that such person did not knowingly commit any act or knowingly engage in any activity which constitutes a violation of any provision of this chapter." Ala. Code § 8-19-13. 

No. No action may be 

brought under this chapter more than one year after the person bringing the action discovers or reasonably should have discovered the act or practice. Ala. Code § 8-19-14. 

Yes. Ala. Code 8-19-10(e). 

Yes. Ala. Code Tit. 8 § 8-19-10(a)(2). 

Alaska (Alaska Stat. §§ 45.50.471 through .561) 

Yes. See, e.g., Turner v. 

AlaskaCommc’ns. Sys. Long Distances, Inc., 78 P.3d 264, 266-70 (Alaska 2003). 

Yes - actual loss of money or property. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a); Garrison v. Dixon, 19 P.3d 1229, 1235 

No - only that acts were capable of being misleading or deceptive. Odom v. Fairbanks Mem 7 Hosp., 999 P.2d 123, 132 (Alaska 2000); Kenai 

No. See AS 45.50.531(a); State v. O’Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 534 (Alaska 1980) (“Actual injury as a result of the deception 

2 years from date violation was or reasonably should have been discovered. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(f). 

Pre-suit notice required only before an action for injunctive relief. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.535. 

3 times actual damages or $50whichever is greater. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
3 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

n.22 (Alaska 2001). 

Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 

P.3d 1240, 1255 (Alaska 2007). 

is not required. All that is required is a showing that the acts or practices were capable of being interpreted that way.”); Odom, 999 P.2d at 132. 

Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44- 1521 through 44-1534) 

Yes. Yes - distinct 

and palpable injury. Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917, 919 (Ariz. 2005) 

Yes - intent that consumers rely on the misrepresentation. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1522(A). 

Yes, even if unreasonable reliance. Kuehn v. 

Stanley, 91 P.3d 

346, 351 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004); Holeman v. Neils,803 F. Supp. 237, 242 (D. Ariz. 1992); Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 666 P.2d 83, 87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) 

1 year from date of transaction giving rise to the action; discovery rule applies. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(5), Murry v. Western 

Am. Mortgage Co., 604 P.2d 651, 654 (Ct. App. Ariz. 1979); Bergdale v. 

Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057- PCT-SMM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86370, at *11 (D. Ariz. June 25, 2014). 

No. Actual damages 

suffered as a reof the unlawful or practice. Holeman, 803 FSupp. at 242; Dunlap, 666 P.2at 87); Nataros 

Fine Arts Galleof Scottsdale, In

612 P.2d 500, 5(Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
4 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Arkansas (Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107) 

Anderson v. Stewart, 366 Ark. 203, 234 S.W.3d 295 (2006) 

Yes, actual financial loss required. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113. 

No. Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762, 776 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Yes. Apex Oil Co., Inc. v. Jones Stephens Corp., 

881 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir. 2018). 

5 years from the date of the violation or the date upon which the cause of action arises. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115. 

No. Yes. Ark. Code 

Ann. § 4-88-113(a)(2)(A). 

California - UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) 

Yes. Yes - injury in 

fact and lost money or property. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, 39 Cal. 4th 223, 227 (2006);Proposition . 64, § 3. 

No. South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861, 877 (1999) (citing Hewlett v. 

Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 54 Cal. App. 4th 499,591 (1997)). 

Yes, but on a showing that misrepresentation was material, reliance is inferred as to all class members. Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 

1013, 1020-22 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing In re 

Tobacco II Cases,46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), and In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 116, 129 (2009)). 

4 years from date cause of action accrued; discovery rule does not apply. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208; Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 284 F.R.D. 504, 543 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Karl Storz Endoscopy- America, Inc. v. Surgical 

Techs., Inc., 285 F.3d 848,857 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

No. No. Cortez v. 

Purolator Air Filtration Products. Co., 2Cal. 4th 163, 1774 (2000). 

Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-1- 101, et seq.) - 

Yes. Robinson v. Lynmar Racquet Club, Inc., 851 P.2d 274, 277 (Colo.. App. 1993). 

Yes. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 6- 1-113( l)(a); Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 

Yes. Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142, 147 (Colo. 2003). 

Yes. Rhino Linings, 62 P.3d at 147-48. 

3 years from date violation was or reasonably could have been discovered.Colo. 

No. Actual damages 

$500, whichevegreater. Colo. RStat. Ann. § 6-1113(2)(a)(I)-(IIIn class actions

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
5 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

individual actions 

Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (1977) 

Rev. Stat. Ann §6-1-115. 

only actual damages are permitted. ColoRev. Stat.Ann. 1-113(2)(a). 

Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1- 101, et seq.) - 

class actions 

In class actions1-113(2)(a). 

Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42- 110a, et seq.) 

Yes. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 42- 110g(b). 

Yes, but only must show that damages are capable of being discovered, observed, or established. Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313, 780 A.2d 98 (2001) ; Lentini v. 

Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. of New York, 479 F. Supp. 2d 292, 302 (D. Conn. 2007). 

No. Lentini, 479 F. Supp. 2d at 302-303. 

No. Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 440 A.2d 810, 815-16 (1981) 

3 years after date of violation; no discovery rule applies. See Conn. Gen. Stat.Ann. § 42-110g(f); Ride, Inc. v. APS Tech., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-CV1721 (JCH), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44484, at *39 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2014); Kaplan v. Gruder, CV 960334308S, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1322, at *31-32 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 19, 1999). 

No. Yes. Conn. Gen

Stat.Ann. § 42-110g(d); Nguyev. Kabel, HHDCV1260309S, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2554, at *22 (Conn. Super. Nov. 5, 2013). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
6 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Delaware (6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 6 § 2511, et seq.) 

Yes. Yes. Pack & 

Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 503 A2d 646, 657-58 (Del. Super. Ct. 1984). 

Only for concealment claims - must show defendant intended reliance on the concealment. Del. Code Ann. tit. 6 § 2513(a); Stephenson v. Capano Dev., Inc.,462 A 2d 1069, 1074 (Del. 1983); Brandywine Volkswagen v. State, 312 A.2d 632, 634 (Del.1973); Pack & Process, 503 A.2d at 657. 

No. Pack & Process, 503 A.2d at 658; see also State ex rel. Brady v. Publishers Clearing House, 787 A.2d 111 (Del. Ch. 2001) 

3 years from date violation was or reasonably could have been discovered. Del. Code Ann. tit. 10 § 1806; Pack & Process, 503 A.2d at 

650. 

No. Yes. Stephenson

462 A.2d at 107

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
7 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

District of Columbia (D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3901 to 28-3913) 

Yes. See, e.g., Dist. Cablevision Ltd. P’ship v. 

Bassin, 828 A.2d 714 (D.C. 2003); Wells v. Allstate Ins. Co., 210 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2002). 

No. D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3904, 28- 3905(k); Wells. 210 F.R.D. at 8. 

No. Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Serv.., 994 F. Supp. 2d 90, 93- 94 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Cannon v. 

Wells Fargo Bank. NA„ 926 F. Supp. 2d 152, 173-74 (D.D.C. 2013)). 

No. D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3904, 28- 3905(k); Wells. 210 F.R.D. at 8. 

3 years from date violation was or reasonably could have been discovered. D.C. Code Ann. § 12-301(8); Richards v. Duke Univ., 480 F. Supp. 2d 222, 235 (D.D.C. 2007). 

No. No. D.C. Code 

Ann. § 28- 3905(k)(l); Williams v. FirsGov’t Mortgage Investors Corp.225 F.3d 738, 7(D.C. Cir. 2000

Florida (Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 501.201, et seq.)

Yes. See, e.g.,) Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Hines, 883 So. 2d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003); Latman v. 

Costa Cruise Lines, N. V., 758 So. 2d 699(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) 

Yes - actual damages. McGuire v.

Ryland Group, Inc., 497 F. 

Supp. 2d 1347, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2007); KC 

Leisure, Inc. v. 

Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008 

No. Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 973-74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000); W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Myers, 696 So. 2d 776, 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). 

Courts split. Some courts hold reliance is not required. Grillasca v. 

Amerada Hess Corp., No. 8:05- cv-1736-T17TGW, 2006 WL 3313719, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2006); Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2000). Others hold reliance is 

The later of 4 years after violation or 2 years after last payment in transaction; statute cannot be tolled. Fla. Stat.Ann. § 501.207(5); Yusuf Mohamad Excavation, Inc. v. Ringhaver Equip., Co., 793 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2001); Davis v. Monahan, 832 So. 2d 70 8 (Fla. 2002). 

No. Yes - limited to 

amount in whicviolator was unjustly enricheby the violationFla. Stat. Ann.§ 507.207(3), 501.211. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
8 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

required. Rosa v. Amoco Oil Co., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1368-69 (S.D. Fla. 2003); Mac-Gray Serv., Inc. v. DeGeorge, 

913 So. 2d 630. 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005); Black Diamond Prop., Inc. v. Haines, 940 So. 2d 1176, 1179 & n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). 

Georgia - GFBPA (Ga. Code Ann.§ 10-1-390, et seq.) 

No.Ga. Code Ann.. § 10-l399(a); Honig v. Comcast of Georgia, 537 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2008); Friedlander v. PDK Labs Inc., 266 Ga. 180, 465 S.E.2d 670 (1996) 

Yes.Ga. Code Ann.. § 10-1-399; Regency Nissan. Inc. v. Taylor, 194 Ga. App. 645,391 S.E.2d 467, 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). 

No. Regency Nissan, 391 S.E.2d 

at 470; Henderson v. Gandy, 270 Ga. App. 827, 608 S.E.2d 248,252 (2004); Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-373. 

Yes.Ga. Code Ann. § 10-l399(a); Crown Ford, Inc. v. Crawford, 221 Ga. App. 881, 473 S.E.2d 554 (1996)\Baranco. 

Inc. v. Bradshaw, 194 Ga. App. 645,456 S.E.2d 

592, 594, (1995); Zeeman v. Black, 

156 Ga. App. 82 (1980). 

2 years from date violation was or reasonably should have been discovered. Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1- 401(a)(1). 

Plaintiff must give written notice at least 30 days before commencing suit; defendant then has 30 days to tender written settlement offer which, if rejected, may limit plaintiffs recovery. Regency Nissan,194 Ga. App. 645. 

General damagerecoverable. GaCode Ann.. § 101- 399(a); Conseco Fin. Servicing CorpHill, 252 Ga. A774, 556 S.E.2d 468,473 (2001 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
9 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 480-2) - individual actions 

Yes. See, e.g., Daly v. Harris, 

215 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1103 (D. Haw. 2002); Hum

v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995). 

Required for damages; not for injunctive relief. Haw. Re. Stat.Ann. § § 480-13, 481A- 4; Sambor v. 

Omnia Credit Servs., Inc.,183 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1244 (D. Haw. 2002); Davis v. 

Wholesale Motors, Inc., 

949 P.2d 1026, 1038 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). 

No. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 480-2, 481A-4; Davis, 949 P.2d 1026. 

No, but causation is. See Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann § 480- 13; Sambor, 183 F. Supp. 2d at 1244. 

4 years from date of violation; discovery rule applies. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480- 24(a); Dodds v. BAC 

Home Loans Servicing, DP, No. 10-00371. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42561. at *22-23 (D. Haw. Apr. 19, 2011); Basque v. Liau, 441 P.2d 636, 637-38 (Haw. 1968).

No. Yes - minimum 

$1,000 or treble damages; if an elder, minimum $5,000 or treble damages. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann 480-13(b)(l). 

Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2) - class actions 

In class actions

$1,000 minimum 

discretion to faiStat. § Ann. 480

Idaho (Idaho Code Ann.. § 48-601 et seq.) 

Yes, but class may bring action only for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. Idaho Code Ann § 48-608 

Yes. Ascertainable loss of money or property. Idaho Code Ann. § 48-608. 

Yes. Swafford v. Huntsman Springs, Inc., 163 Idaho 209, 409 P.3d 789, 793 (2017). 

No. Two years after 

cause of action accrues. Idaho Code Ann § 48-619. 

No. Yes. Idaho Cod

damages or $1,0greater. Id. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/
10 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Illinois - UDTPA (815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 510/1- 510/7) 

Yes. No, only 

likelihood of future injury. 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 510/3; Smith v. 

Prime Cable Co. of Chicago, 276 Ill.. App. 3d 843, 860, 658 N.E.2d 1325 (1995) 

No. McGrawEdison Co. v. Walt Disney Productions, 787 F.2d 1163, 1173- 74 (7th Cir. 1986). 

No. McGrawEdison Co., 787 F.2d at 1173-74. 

3 years after plaintiff suffered injury. 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/10(a)€. 

No. Injunctive relief 

violations of the 

815 Ill. Comp. 

Indiana (Ind. Code Ann. §§ 24- 5-0.5-3(a)(l)- (18))- incurable acts 

Yes. Ind. Code §24-5-0.5-4(b). 

Yes. Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-4(a). 

Yes - intent to defraud or mislead. McKinney v. State,693 N.E.2d 65, 68-69 (Ind. 1998). 

Yes. Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-4(a); Captain & Co. v. Steinberg,

505 N.E.2d 88,98-99 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). 

2 years from occurrence of deceptive act; discovery rule does not apply. Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5- 0.5-5(b); AJ.’s Auto. Sales v. Freet, 725 

N.E.2d 955, 964-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), abrogated on other grounds, Camoplast Crocker, LLC v. Schoolcraft, 12 N.E.3d 251 (Ind. 2014). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $50whichever is greater. Ind. CoAnn.§ 24-5-0.54(a). 

Indiana (Ind. Code Ann. §§ 24- 5-0.5-3(a)(l)- (18)) uncured acts 

No. McKinney, 

693 N.E.2d at 68- 69. 

Yes - plaintiff must give notice to supplier within the sooner of 6 months after discovery of deceptive act, 1 year after consumer transaction, or at least 30 days of any period of applicable warranty. Ind. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
11 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Code § 24-5-0.5- 5 (a );A.B.C. Home & Real Estate Inspection, Inc.v. Plummer, 500 

N.E.2d 1257, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). 

Iowa Iowa Code Ann. § 714H.5) 

Only if first approved by the Attorney General. Iowa. Code Ann.§ 714H.7. 

Yes. Ascertainable loss of money or property. Iowa Code Ann. § 714H.5. 

A person shall not engage in behavior that he knows or has reason to know is an unfair practice. Iowa Code Ann. § 714H.3. 

No. Within 2 years of the 

last event giving rise to the cause of action, or within 2 years of the discovery of the violation, whichever is later.Iowa. Code Ann.§ 714H.5. 

No. Yes.Iowa Code 

Ann.§ 714H.5. 

Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50- 623, et seq.) - individual actions 

Yes. Kan. Stat. Ann § 60-223; Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 277 Kan. 776, 89 P.3d 908, 911 (2004) 

Yes. Finstad v. 

Washburn Univ. of Topeka, 252 Kan. 465,845 P.2d 685, 690-91 (. 1993). 

No. Willman v. 

Ewen, 230 Kan. 262, 267, 634 P.2d 1061 (1981); Haag v. Dry Basement, Inc., 11 Kan. App. 2d 649, 650 (1987). 

Yes. Finstad. 845 

P.2d at 689- 91. 

3 years after date of violation; discovery rule does not apply. Alexander v. Certified Master Builders Corp., 268 Kan. 812, 1 P.3d 899, 908 (Kan. 2000); Four Seasons Apartments, Ltd. v. AAA Glass Serv., Inc., 37 Kan. App. 2d 248, 152 P.3d 101, 105 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).

No. Yes - actual 

damages or a cipenalty of not more than $10,0for each violatiowhichever is greater. Kan. StAnn §50-634(b636(a). 

Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50- 623, et 

Class actions mthe violation. KFinstad, 845 P.

Supp. 2d 1209, 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
12 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

seq.) - class actions Kentucky (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 367.220) 

Yes. Yes. M.T. v. 

Saum, 7 F. Supp. 3d 701, 706 (W.D. Ky. 2014). 

Showing of causal nexus required. M.T. v. Saum, 7 F. Supp. 3d 701, 706 (W.D. Ky. 2014). 

No. Corder v. Ford Motor Co., 869 F. Supp. 2d 835, 838 (W.D. Ky. 2012). 

1 year after any action of the Attorney General has terminated or two years after the violation of Ky. Rev. Stat.Ann. § 367.170, whichever is later. Ky. Rev. Stat.Ann. § 367.220(5). 

No. Yes. Ky. Rev. S

Ann § 367.220

Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1405, et seq.)

No - only the Attorney General can sue on behalf of a class of consumers. La. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 51:1404(B), 1407, 1408, 1409(A), 1414; State ex rel. Guste v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 354 So. 2d 770 ( La. 1978) ); Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 379 F.3d 159, 174-75 (2004). 

Yes. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(A); Landrum v. 

lid. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 758 F. Supp. 387. 392 (E.D. La. 1991). 

Yes - more than mere negligence. Marshall v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc., 601 So. 2d 669, 670-71 (La. Ct. App. 1992). 

No, but must prove causation. La. Rev. Stat. Ann § 51:1409(A). 

1 year from date of transaction giving rise to action; discovery rule does not apply. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(E); Morrisv. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 765 So. 2d 419, 422 (La. Ct. App. 2000). 

No. Yes. La. Rev. S

Ann § 51:1409. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
13 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 § 213) 

Yes. See 

Oceanside at Pine Point Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Peachtree Doors, Inc., 659 A.2d 267 (Me. 1995). 

Yes. Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 659 F.3d 151, 160 (1st Cir. 2011). 

No. Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'n, 688 A.2d 898, 906 (Me. 1996). 

Yes. GxG Mgmt., LLC v. Young Bros. & Co., 457 F. Supp. 2d 47, 50 (D. Me. 2006) 

“[C]laims under Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Act are subject to Maine’s general six-year statute of limitations period for civil actions.” Campbell v. Machias Sav. Bank, 865 F. Supp. 26, 34 (D. Me. 1994) 

Yes. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 § 213(1-A). 

Yes. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 213(1) 

Maryland (Md. Comm. Law § 13-408) 

Yes. See, e.g., 

Green v. H & R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488, 735 A.2d 1039 (Md. 1999). 

No. Md. Ann., Com. Law § 13-302. 

Yes. Allen v. 

Bank of Am., N.A., 933 F. Supp. 2d 716, 727 (D. Md. 2013). 

No. Md. Ann., Com. Law § 13-302. 

Three years. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. 

No. Yes. Md. Comm

Law § 13-408. 

Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.ch 93A § 9) 

Yes. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch 93A § 9(2). 

Yes. Refuse & Envtl. Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Servs. of Am., Inc., 932 F.2d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 1991). 

No. In re Leger, 

34 B.R. 873, 876 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983) 

No. In re Leger, 34 B.R. 873, 876 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983) 

4 years. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11. 

Yes. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch 93A, §9(3). 

Yes. Mass. GenLaws Ann. ch. 93A, § 9(1). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
14 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.911) 

Yes. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.911(3). 

Yes. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.911. 

Yes. Dix v. Am. Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 429 Mich. 410, 418, 415 N.W.2d 206, 209 (1987) 

In class action, no individual proof of reliance required. Dix v. 

Am. Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 429 Mich. 410, 418, 415 N.W.2d 206, 209 (1987) 

Six years. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5813. 

No. Yes. Mich. Com

Laws Ann. § 445.911(2). 

Minnesota - UDTPA (Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.43- 325D.48) 

Yes. See. e.g.. Schlink v. Edina 

Realty Title, No. CT 02-018380, 2003 WL 23786984 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 9, 2003); Curtis v. Philip Morris Cos. Inc., No. PI 01-018042, 2004 WL 2776228 (D. Minn. Nov. 29, 2004); Mooney v. 

Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.,244 F.R.D. 531 (D. Minn. 2007). 

Likelihood of future injury; past injuries not actionable. I- Systems, Inc.

v. Softwares, Inc., No. Civ. 02-1951 JRTFLN, 2004 WL 742082 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004); Wehner v. Linvatech Corp., No. 06-CV-1709- JMR/FLN, 2008 WL 495525, at *4 (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2008). 

No. I-Systems, 2004 WL 742082. 

No. Thompson v. Am. Tobacco Co.. Inc., 189 F.R.D. 544. 552- 53 (D. Minn. 1999). 

6 years from discovery of the facts constituting fraud. Minn. Stat. § 541.05; Tuttle v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Ml 377 F.3d 917, 926 (2004). 

No. No - the UDTP

§ 325D.45(1); DAero, Inc., 603 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
15 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-15) 

No. Yes. Miss. 

Code Ann. § 75-24-15(2). 

Yes. Miss. CodAnn. § 75-24-15(1) 

Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.010, et seq.)

Yes. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025(2). 

Yes. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025(1); Owen v. CMC, 

533 F.3d 913. 922 (8th Cir. 2008); State ex 

rel. Nixon v. 

Telco Directory Pub., 863 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. 1993). 

No. State ex rel. Nixon v. Beer Nuts, 29 S.W.3d 828, 837 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000); State ex rel. Webster v. Areaco Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). 

No. State v. Areaco. Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633, 635-36 (Mo. App. 1988). 

5 years from time plaintiff sustained damage from the unfair practice; discovery rule applies. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(1); Boulds v. Chase Auto Fin. Corp., 266 S.W.3d 847, 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008); Ullrich v. CADCO, 

Inc., 244 S.W.3d 772, 778 & n.3 (Mo. App. 2008). 

No. Yes. Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.020.Ullrich. 244 S.W.3d 772; Viv. Concours AuSales. Inc., 787 S.W.2d 814 (MApp. 1990). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
16 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-101 et seq.) 

No. Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1). 

Yes. Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1). 

Only that action be “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Rohrer v. Knudson, 2009 MT 35, ¶ 31, 349 Mont. 197, 205 (2009). 

No. Two years. Mont. 

Code Ann. § 27-2-211. 

No. Yes, actual 

damages or $50whichever is greater. Mont. Code Ann. § 3014-133(1). 

Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 59-1609) 

Yes. See, e.g., 

Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 676 N.W. 2d 29 (Neb. 2004); Hage v. General Service Bureau, 306 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Neb. 2003). 

Yes, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 59-1609. 

Yes. No. Four years. Neb. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 59-1612. 

No. Yes. Neb. Rev

Stat. § 59-1609

Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600) 

Yes. Yes. Sattari v. 

Wash. Mut.,475 Fed. Appx. 648, 648 (9th Cir.) 

No. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903- 598.0999. 41.600(2)(e) 

No, but causation is. Sattari, 475 

Fed. Appx. at 648 

4 years from date violation was or could have been reasonably 

No. Yes. Nev. Rev. 

Stat. § 41.600(3)(a)-(b

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
17 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

New Hampshire (N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann.. § 358-A:1, et seq.) 

Yes. N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann.. § 358-A:10-a. 

Yes. N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann.. § 358- A:10-a. 

No. RSA § 358- A:10; Barrows v. 

Boles, 687 A2d 979, 986-87 (N.H. 1996). 

No, but causation is. Mulligan v. 

Choice Mortg. Corp. USA, No. CIV. 96-596-B, 1998 WL 544431, at *11 (D.N.H. Aug. 11. 1998). 

3 years from date violation was or reasonably could have been discovered. N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann.. § 358-A:3(IV-a); Murray v. 

McNamara, N o. 2013-630, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 23, at *7-8 (N.H. Mar. 20, 2015). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $1,000, whicheis greater. N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann.. § 358-A:

New Jersey (N.J. Rev. Stat. Ann. §56:8-1, et seq.)

Yes. Varacallo v. 

Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 332 N.J. Super. 31, 45 (App. Div. 2006). 

Yes. Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. LLC, 183 

N.J. 234, 246 (2005). 

If an omission, defendant must have acted knowingly. Fenwick v. Kay Am. Jeep, Inc., 72 N.J. 372 (1977). If an affirmative act, only the potential to mislead is required. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-

No, only a causal nexus. N.J. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19; Int’l Union of 

Operating Eng’rs Local #68 Welfare Fund v. 

Merck & Co., Inc., 384 N.J. 

Super. 275, 281 (App. Div. 2006); DaBush v. 

6 years from time plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim’s existence. N.J. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1; Mirra v. Holland 

Am. Line, 331 N.J. Super. 86, 91 (App. Div. 2000); Tammera v. Grossman, Civ. No. 10-569 (DRD), 

No. Yes. N.J. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 56:19. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
18 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

2; Lingar v. LiveIn Companions, 

Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 22, 28 (App. Div. 1997). 

Mercedes Benz USA, Inc., 874 A2d 1110, 1121 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005); N.J. Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 842 A.2d 174, 178 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003). 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32641, at *15-16 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2010). 

New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1, et seq.) - individual actions 

Yes. Fiser v. Dell 

Comput. Corp.,144 N.M. 464, 468-69(2008). 

To obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must prove only that they are likely to be damaged. Page & Wirtz Constr. Co. v. Solomon, 794 P.2d 349, 354 (N.M. 1990); N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 57- 12-10(A). To recover damages, plaintiff must show actual injury. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12- 10(B). 

Yes - defendant must know or reasonably should have known representation is false. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D); Taylor v. United Mgmt., Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1216 (D.N.M. 1999); Stevenson v. Louis Dreyfus Corp.,

811 P.2d 1308, 1311 (N.M. 1991). 

No, but causation is. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10(B); Uniform Jury Instructions

13- 1707 NMRA; Stevenson, 811 

P.2d at 1311. 

4 years from date of violation; discovery rule applies. Nance

v. L.J. Dolloff Assocs., Inc., 138 N.M. 851, 856 (2005); Tiberi v. Cigna Corp., 89 F.3d 1423, 1430 (10th Cir. 1996); Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC,

27 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1213-14 (D.N.M. 2014). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $10whichever is greater. N.M. SAnn. § 57-12-10(B); Lohman 

Daimler-ChryslCorp., 142 N.M437, 445-46 (2007). 

Named plaintifffor $100, whichclass members mmember as a re

New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1, et seq.) - class actions 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
19 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

New York - N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 349 

Yes. See N.Y. 

C.P.L.R. § 901(b); N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 349(h); Rubin v. Nine W. Group, Inc., No. 

0763/99, 1999 WL 1425364. *2 (N.Y.S. Nov. 3, 1999); Law! or 

Cablevision Sys. Corp.. No. 12308-06. 2007 WL 914199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). 

Yes - actual harm. Baron v. Pfizer, Inc.,840 N.Y.S.2d 445. 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007); Tomasino v. Estee Lauder Cos., 13-CV4692 (ERK) (RML), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38918, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). 

No. Stutman v. Chem. Bank, 731 N.E.2d 608.612 (N.Y. 2000); Tomasino, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38918, at *9. 

No, but must prove causation. Baron, 840 N.Y.S.2d at 448; Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 55 (1999). 

3 years after plaintiff suffered injury; discovery rule may apply. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 840 N.Y.S.2d 8, 11 (2007); Avdon Capitol Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 658 N.Y.S.2d 383 (1997); Bidetti v. Salter, 108 

AD.2d 890, 891 (N.Y. 1985). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $50whichever is greater. N.Y. GBus. §§ 349(h), 350- e(3). 

North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1, et seq.)

Yes. Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc., 319 N.C. 274, 282-85 (1987). 

Yes. Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods Inc.,155 N.C. App. 110, 113-14 (Ct. App. 2002). 

No. Excel Staffing Serv., Inc. v. HP 

Reidsville, Inc.,616 S.E.2d 349, 355 (N.D. Ct. App. 2005). 

No. Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 544, 548 (1981); Cullen v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., 161 N.C. App. 570, 580 (Ct. App. 2004). 

4 years from date of violation; discovery rule applies. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.2; United States v. Ward, 618 F. Supp. 884, 902-03 (E.D.N.C. 1985); Nash v. Motorola 

Comm’s & Elecs. Inc., 96 N.C. App. 

329, 331 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). 

No. Yes. N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 75-16; Ev. Northern StaCo., 388 S.E.2d 127, 131 (N.C. 1990). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
20 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-15-01 through 51- 15-11) 

Yes. Rose v. 

United Equitable Ins. Co., 651 N.W.2d 683 (N.D. 2002). 

Yes - threatened or actual injury. Ackre v. Chapman & Chapman, PC, 788 N.W. 2d 344, 352 at ¶23; N.D. Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Haider, 

No. CIV Al98- 077, 1999 WL 33283355, at *3 (D.N.D. Mar. 9, 1999). 

Yes - intent that others rely on the deceptive act. N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-02. 

No. N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-02. 

6 years from time plaintiff knew or should have known of claim’s existence. N.D. Cent. Code § 28- 01-16; Hebron Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Morton Cnty. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,475 N.W.2d 120, 126 (N.D. 1991). 

No. Yes - court 

discretion. N.DCent. Code § 5115-09. 

Ohio (ORC § 1345, et seq.)

Yes, only if a prior decision or rule put defendant on notice that the specific conduct at issue was deceptive or unconscionable prior to the subject transaction. ORC §§ 1345.05(A)(3), (B)(2), 1345.09(B); Bower v. Int’l 

Bus. Machines, 

Yes. Burdge v. Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC, No. CA2006-02- 023, 2006 WL 2535762, at *8 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2006). 

No. Foster v. 

D.B.S. Collection Agency, Case No. 01-CV-514. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22264, at *28-29 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2008); Rose v. 

Zaring Homes. Inc., 702 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). 

No. Foster, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22264, at *28-29; Rose. 702 N.E.2d at 956. 

2 years after violation or 1 year after termination of proceedings by the Attorney General; no discovery rule applies for actions seeking damages. O.R.C. § 1345.10(C) & Weaver v. 

Armando’s, Inc., Case No. 02 CA 153, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 4273, at *16 (7th Dist. Sept. 3, 2003). 

No. Yes. ORC § 

1345.09(A). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
21 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Inc., 495 F. Supp. 2d 837 (S.D. Ohio 2007). 

Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 15-751, et seq.) 

Yes. Tibbetts v. Sight ‘n Sound Appliance Centers, Inc., 2003 OK 72, 77 P.3d 1042; Wallsv. Am. Tobacco Co., 2000 OK 66, 11 P.3d 626. 

Yes. 15 Okla. Stat. § 761.1(A); Walls,. 2000 

OK, 11 P.3d at 629 (¶ 11) 

Yes. 15 Okla. Stat. § 753. 

No, but causation is. Patterson v. 

Beall, 2000 OK 19 P.3d 839, 846-47. 

2 years after date of plaintiff’s injury; discovery rule applies. 12 Okla. Stat. § 95; Daughertyv. Farmers Coop. Ass’n, 1984 OK 72, 689 P.2d 947. 

No. Yes. Okla. St. 1

761.1(A). 

Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638) 

Yes. Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638(4). 

 Yes. Leudeman v. 

Tri-West Constr. Co., 592 P.2d 281, 282 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). 

In certain circumstances. Sanders v. Francis, 561 P.2d 1003, 1006 (Ore. 1977). 

 No. Yes. Or. Rev. S

§ 646.638(1). 

Pennsylvania (73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1, et seq.) 

Yes. Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 

A.2d 186, 201-03 (2007); Weinbergv. Sun Co., Inc., Ill A2d 442, 444 (Pa. 2001). 

Yes. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a); Weinberg. Ill A2d at 446. 

Yes. Debbs v. 

Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137, 155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). 

Yes. Colaizzi v. Beck, 895 A 2d 36, 40 (Pa. Super. 2006); Huntv. U.S. Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 

217, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). 

6 years from date plaintiff had sufficient facts to be on notice of the wrong. Lesoon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 898 A2d 620, 627 (Pa. Super.), allocator denied, 912 A 2d 1293 (Pa. 2006); Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 879 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $10whichever is greater. 73 P.S. 201-9.2. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
22 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

A.2d 270, 276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). 

Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-5) 

Yes. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-5.2(b). Yes. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-

5.2 

No. Long v. Dell, Inc., 93 A.3d 988, 1003 (R.I. 2014) 

No. Long v. Dell, Inc., 93 A.3d 988, 1003 (R.I. 2014) 

10 years. 9 R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13. 

No. Yes, actual 

damages or $20whichever is greater. R.I. GeLaws § 6-13.1-5.2(a). 

South Carolina (S.C. Code Code §§ 39- 5-10 to 39-5- 560) 

No. Dema v. 

Tenet Phys. Services-Hilton Head, Inc. 383 S.C. 115. 122 (2009); S.C. Code §§ 39-5- 20, 39-5- 140(a). 

Yes. S.C. Code § 39-5-140(a); Omni Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Columbia Outdoor Adver. Inc., 91A F.2d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 1992). 

No, representation must simply have the capacity to deceive. Inman v. Ken Hyatt Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 363 S.E.2d 691, 692 (S.C. 1988); Haley Nursery Co.v. Forrest, 381 S.E.2d 906, 909 (S.C. 1989). 

No. S.C. Code § 39-5-140(a); Inman, 363 

S.E.2d at 692. 

3 years from date violation was or reasonably could have been discovered. S.C. Code § 39-5-150. 

No. Yes. S.C. Code 

39- 5-140(a). 

South Dakota (S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-6) 

Yes. No. S.D. 

Codified Laws § 37-24-6 

Yes. S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-6. 

No. Nygaard v. Sioux Valley Hosps. & Health Sys., 2007 S.D. 34, ¶ 33, 731 N.W.2d 184, 196. 

Four years S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-33. 

No. S.D. Codified 

Laws § 37-24-3

Tennessee (Tenn. Code § 47-18-109) 

No. See Tenn. Code § 47-18-109(a)(1). 

Yes. Tenn. Code § 47-18-109. 

Some element of intent must be present. Smith v. Scott Lewis Chevrolet Inc., 843 S.W. 2d 9, 12 

No. Fleming v. Murphy, No. W2006-00701-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 2050930, at *7 

One year from discovery. Tenn. Code § 47-18-110. 

No. Tenn. Code § 4

18-109(a)(1). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
23 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). 

(Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2007). 

Texas (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50) 

Yes. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.501. 

No. Williams v. Trail Dust Steak House, Inc., 727 S.W. 2d 812, 814 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987). 

Yes. Cobb v. Dunlap, 656 S.W. 2d 550, 554 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983). 

2 years after the date upon which the practice occurred. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.565. 

Yes. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.505. 

Yes. Also may recover damagefor mental anguish. Tex. B& Com. Code § 17.50(b)(1), (3)

Utah (Utah Code § 13- 11-1 to 13-11- 23)- individual actions 

For equitable relief, always permitted. Utah Code § 13-11-19(3). For damages, only permissible if violation occurred after enforcing authority adopted a rule prohibiting the act, the act was declared to violate a final judgment made available to public for 10 days, or act was prohibited by a finalized consent judgment. Utah Code § 13-1 l19(4)(a). 

Yes. Utah Code § 13-11-19(2); Andreason v. Felsted, 137 P.3d 1, 4 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). 

Yes. Kee v. R-G 

Crown Bank, 656 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1356 (D. Utah 2009). 

No, but causation is. Utah Code § 13-11-19(2). 

2 years after violation or 1 year after termination of proceedings by the enforcing authority; an equitable discovery rule may be applied in court’s discretion on a showing of exceptional circumstances. Utah Code § 13- 11-19(8); Moore v. Smith. 158 

P.3d 562, 570-71 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $2,000, whicheis greater. Utah Code § 13-11-19(2). 

Utah (Utah Code § 13- 11-1 to 13-11- 23) - class actions 

Actual damages are only availabif defendant’s specific acts wepreviously declared unlawfby a court or othauthority. Utah Code § 13-1 l19(4)(a). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
24 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Vermont (9 V.S.A. §§ 2451 to 2480n) 

Yes. Elkins v. Microsoft Corp.,174 Vt. 328,331 (2002); Salatinov. Chase, 182 Vt. 

267 (2007). 

No injury required if reliance is shown. Peabody v. P.J.’s Auto Vill., Inc., 153 

Vt. 55 (1989); 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b). 

No. Inkel v. Pride 

ChevroletPontiac, Inc., 183 Vt. 144, 150 (2008); Winton v. Johnson & Dix Fuel Corp., 147 Vt. 236, 243 (1986). 

No reliance required if injury is shown. 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b); Jordan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 176 Vt. 465, 469 (2004). 

6 years; discovery rule applies in cases of fraudulent concealment of basis of the claim. 12 V.S.A § 511; In re Peterson, 93 B.R. 323, 327 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1988). 

No. Yes. 9 V.S.A. § 

2461(b). 

Virginia (Va. Code § 59.1.196, et seq.) 

No. The Act does not contain a class action provision, and Virginia law does not permit class actions unless authorized by statute. E.g., King

v. Virginia BirthRelated Neurological Injury Comp. Program, 22 Va. Cir. 156, 159, (1990); Kuhn v. 

West Alexandria Props., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 439, 444 (Alexandria 1980). 

Yes. Polk v. Crown Auto, Inc., 228 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2000); Alstonv. Crown Auto, Inc., 224 F.3d 

332 (4th Cir. 2000). 

Yes. Grey- Theriotv. Ouansah, Case 

No. 10-12304- SSM, 2011 Bankr, LEXIS 1319, at *9-10 (E.D. Va. Bankr. Apr. 11, 2011). 

Yes. Koschene v. Hutchinson, 73 Va. Cir. 103 (2007); Weiss v. Cassidy Dev. Corp., 63 Va. Cir. 

76 (2003); Sykes 

v. Brady-Bushey Ford, Inc., 69 Va. Cir. 219 (2005); Cooper v. GGGR Invs., LLC, 334 B.R. 179 (E.D. Va. 2005). 

2 years from date of plaintiff’s injury; discovery rule applies. Va. Code §§ 8.01- 249,59.1-204; Schmidt v. Household Fin. Corp., II, 276 Va. 108 (2008); Skibinskiv. Lunger, 70 Va. Cir. 423 (2006). 

No. Yes - actual 

damages or $50whichever is greater. Va. Co§ 59.1-204(A). 

Washington (RCW § 

Yes. Yes. RCW § 

19.86.090; Nordstrom, 

No. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. 

No, but causation is. Hangman 

2 years from date of plaintiffs injury; discovery rule 

No. Yes. RCW § 

19.86.090. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
25 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

19.86.010, et seq.) 

Inc. v. Tampourlos. 733 P.2d 208, 211 (Wash. 1987). 

Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 535 (Wash. 1986). 

Ridge, 719 P.2d at 539. 

applies for willful violations. RCW § 19.182.120. 

West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 46A-1-101, et seq.) 

Yes. Yes. W. Va. 

Code § 46A-6- 106(a). 

Yes. W. Va. Code § 46A-6- 102(7)(M). 

Yes. White v. Wyeth, 227 W. Va. 131 (2010). 

4 years from date of violation; discovery rule applies. W. Va. Code § 46A-5- 101(1); Diloreti v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:14-CV76 (BAILEY), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183617, at *6-7 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 14, 2014). 

Consumer must inform seller in writing via certified mail of alleged violation and allow seller 20 days from receipt of notice to make cure offer; consumer has 10 days from receipt of cure offer to accept or refuse and sue. W. Va. Code § 46A- 6-106(b). 

Yes - actual damages or $20whichever is greater. W. Va. Code § 46A-6-106(a). 

Wisconsin - DTP A (Wis. Stat. § 100.1*8, et seq.) 

Yes. Tietsworth

v. HarleyDavidson, Inc., 677 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 2004); Gallego v. WalYes. Wis. Stat. § 100.18(ll)(b)(2 ); Reusch v. Roob, 610 N.W.2d 168, Yes. Tietsworth, 677 N.W.2d at 239. No, but causation is. K & S Tool & Die Corp. v. Perfection Mach. Sales, Inc.. 732 N.W.2d 792, 798 3 years after violation; discovery rule does not apply. Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11)(b)(3); Kain v. Bluemound No. Yes. Wis. Stat. 

100.18(ll)(b)(2)

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
26 

State Class Actions Permitted? Injury Required? Scienter Required? Reliance Required? Statute of limitations Pre-suit Notice Required? Remedies: Act

Damages? 

Mart Stores, Inc.. 707 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). 

176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). 

(Wis. 2007); Tim Torres Enters., Inc. v. Linscott. 416 N.W.2d 670, 675-76 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). 

E. Indus. Park, Inc., 635 N.W.2d 640 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001); Skrupky v. Elbert,526 N.W. 2d 264 (Ct. App. 1994). 

Wyoming (W.S. §§ 40-12-101 through 114) 

Yes. W.S. § 40-12-108(b). 

Yes. W.S. § 40- 12-108(a). 

Yes. W.S. § 40- 12-105(a). 

Yes. W.S. § 40- 12-108(a). 

2 years from date notice of statutory violation is provided to the violator. W.S. § 40-12-109. 

Consumer must give notice in writing to alleged violator within 1 year after initial discovery of the unlawful practice, or within 2 years after the transaction, whichever comes earlier. W.S. § 40-12-109. 

Yes. W.S. § 40-108(b). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/1
State Law Variations in Trespass to Chattels Claims 

Examples of State Law Variations 

in Intent to Intermeddle or 

Dispossess 

Alaska 

“Trespass to chattels is a lesser form of conversion: it ‘can be committed when a 

party intentionally dispossesses another of the chattel or intentionally uses or 

interferes with a chattel in another's possession.’” Prentzel v. State, Dep't of Pub. 

Safety, 169 P.3d 573, 583 (Alaska 2007) (citation omitted). 

Arizona 

“[A]n intermeddling is not a dispossession unless the actor intends to exercise a 

dominion and control over [property] inconsistent with a possession in any other 

person other than himself.” Hagar v. Rodbell, No. CV10-2748-PHX-DGC, 2012 

WL 827068, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2012).

Colorado 

“Under the principle of law that allows recovery for a trespass to chattels, it is 

necessary that the defendant have acted for the purpose of interfering with the 

chattel, or, what is almost the same thing, that he have acted with knowledge that 

such would be the result of his conduct. In other words, he must have intended the 

intermeddling. If he does not intend thus to meddle, he is not liable today as a 

trespasser.” Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Horn Tower Const. Co., 147 Colo. 

166, 172, 363 P.2d 175, 178 (1961). 

Connecticut 

“Under Connecticut law, trespass to chattels is defined as intentionally 

dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the 

possession of another.” Bowers v. United States, 931 F. Supp. 2d 358, 370 (D. 

Conn. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). 

District of Columbia 

“A defendant commits a trespass to a chattel by ‘intentionally (a) dispossessing 

another of the chattel, or (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the 

possession of another.’” E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Papageorge, 31 F. Supp. 3d 1, 20 

(D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, 629 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Florida 

Under Florida law, “[t]respass to personal property is the intentional use or, or 

interference with, a chattel which is in the possession of another, without 

justification.” Am. Fed’n of Labor-Cong. of Indus. Orgs. v. City of Miami, No. 

07-22966-CIV, 2008 WL 11333331, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2008). 

Kentucky 

Requires “intent to intermeddle with the particular property.” Ingram Trucking, 

Inc. v. Allen, 372 S.W. 3d 870, 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Restatement 

(Second) of Torts § 217). 

Maryland 

“[A]n intermeddling with the chattel is not a dispossession unless the actor intends 

to exercise a dominion and control over it inconsistent with a possession in any 

other person other than himself.” Ground Zero Museum Workshop v. Wilson, 813 

F. Supp. 2d 678, 698 (D. Md. 2011). 

Minnesota 

“A trespass to chattel may be committed by intentionally (a) dispossessing another 

of the chattel, or (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of 

another.” Strei v. Blaine, 996 F. Supp. 2d 763, 792 (D. Minn. 2014). 

Montana 

Trespass to chattels “lies where an intentional interference with the possession of 

personal property has proximately cause injury.” Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’n, 

L.L.C., No. CV 10-13-BLG-RFC, 2010 WL 5140454, at *8 (D. Mont. Dec. 13, 

2010) (citation omitted). 

New Hampshire 

Under New Hampshire law, “[o]ne who without consensual or other privilege to 

do so, uses or otherwise intentionally intermeddles with a chattel which is in 

possession of another is liable for a trespass to such person if, (a) the chattel is 

impaired as to its condition, quality or value, or (b) the possessor is deprived of the 

use of the chattel for a substantial time, or (c) bodily harm is thereby caused to the 

possessor or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 27 of 31
 28 

legally protected interest.” Foley v. Town of Lee, 871 F. Supp. 2d 39, 54 (D.N.H. 

2012) (citation omitted). 

New Jersey 

“Trespass to chattel is a particular type of trespass whereby a person has 

intentionally interfered with another person’s lawful possession of a chattel. See 

Restatement of Torts §§ 217 and 218.” Babino v. Borough of Oakland, No. 2:13-

CV-05302, 2015 WL 3440846, at *5 (D.N.J. May 28, 2015). 

New Mexico 

“The intention required to make one liable for trespass to a chattel is that he must 

have acted for the purpose of interfering with the chattel or with knowledge that a 

disturbance thereof is substantially certain to occur. Restatement, Torts, § 218, 

Comment (a).” Texas-New Mexico Pipeline Co. v. Allstate Const., Inc., 1962-

NMSC-026, ¶ 7, 70 N.M. 15, 17–18, 369 P.2d 401, 402. 

New York 

“To prevail on a claim of trespass to chattels, plaintiffs must prove the following 

four elements: (1) defendants acted with intent, (2) to physically interfere with (3) 

plaintiffs’ lawful possession, and (4) harm resulted.” Biosafe–One, Inc. v. Hawks, 

639 F. Supp. 2d 358, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 

Oregon 

Trespass to chattel lies where there is “[i]ntentional exercise of dominion or 

control over a chattel which interferes with the right of another to control it.” 

Scott v. Jackson Cty., 244 Or. App. 484, 260 P.3d 744 (2011) (citing Restatement 

Second of Torts § 222A). 

Pennsylvania 

“Pennsylvania courts have turned to the Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 217 (1965) 

in identifying the elements necessary to establish a trespass to chattels claim. See 

Pestco, Inc. v. Associated Products, Inc., 880 A. 2d 700, 708 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

Section 217 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides “[a] trespass to a 

chattel may be committed by intentionally (a) dispossessing another of the chattel, 

or (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.” 

Coinmach Corp. v. Bellafonte Assocs., LP, No. 09-CV-00526, 2009 WL 

10685186, at *6 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2009) 

Tennessee 

Trespass defined as “[i]ntentionally dispossessing another of another’s chattel, or 

using or intermeddling with that chattel in the possession of another.” Holt v. 

Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 903, 914 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (citing 

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 218-220). 

Virginia 

“A trespass to chattels occurs when one party intentionally uses or intermeddles 

with personal property in the rightful possession of another without authorization. 

One who commits a trespass to chattel is liable to the possessor of the chattel if the 

chattel is impaired as to its ‘condition, quality, or value,’ and must compensate the 

possessor for the loss of use of the item.” Johns v. Stillwell, No. 3:07-CV-00063, 

2009 WL 2390991, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2009). 

Wyoming 

“‘A dispossession of a chattel may be committed by intentionally (a) taking the 

chattel from another’s possession without their consent; or (b) obtaining 

possession of a chattel from another through fraud or duress; or (c) barring the 

possessor’s access to the chattel; or (d) destroying a chattel while in another’s 

possession; or (e) taking the chattel into the custody of the law. Even a temporary 

appropriation of another’s property may constitute a trespass to chattels.’ 

Sears v. Summit, Inc., 616 P.2d 765, 768–69 (Wyo.1980) (finding a landowner’s 

one-day detention of construction equipment on his property constituted a 

trespass).” Breen v. Pruter, No. 14-CV-00081-F, 2015 WL 6163439, at *6 (D. 

Wyo. Aug. 6, 2015), aff’d, 679 F. App’x 713 (10th Cir. 2017). 

Examples of State Law Variations 

in the Elements of a Trespass to 

Chattels Claim 

Georgia “Georgia statute defines trespass as ‘[a]ny unlawful abuse of or damage done to 

the personal property of another constitutes a trespass for which damages may be 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 28 of 31
 29 

recovered.’” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Does 1-4, No. 1:09-CV-00277-JOF, 2012 WL 

13001387, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2012) (citing O.G.C.A. § 51-10-3). 

Hawaii 

“One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of 

the chattel if, but only if, (a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or 

(b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or 

(c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or 

(d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or 

thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.” Young v. Kraus, No. 

15-00383 LEK-KSC, 2016 WL 8730561, at *7 (D. Haw. Jan. 29, 2016), 

reconsideration denied, No. 15-00383 LEK-KSC, 2016 WL 1587217 (D. Haw. 

Apr. 19, 2016). 

Indiana 

Requires only that (1) defendant dispossessed the plaintiff of his or her chattel; (2) 

the defendant impairs the plaintiff’s chattel in condition, quality of value by 

defendant; (3) the defendant deprived the plaintiff of the use of his or her chattel 

for a substantial time; or (4) the defendant harmed some other thing in which the 

plaintiff had a legally protected interest. Coleman v. Vukovich, 825 N.E. 2d 397, 

407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Terrell v. Rowsey, 647 N.E. 2s 662, 666 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1995). 

Mississippi 

To prevail on a claim of trespass to chattels, a plaintiff “must establish that there 

has been an unauthorized interference with his possession of personal property, or 

an unauthorized use of his personal property.” Awad v. United States, No. 

1:93CV376–D–D, 2001 WL 741638, at *6 (N.D. Miss. April 27, 2001). 

Examples of States that Require 

Actual Damages for Claim to be 

Actionable 

District of Columbia 

“[L]iability for trespass to chattels exists only on a showing of actual damage to 

the property interfered with.” Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701, 707 (D.C. Cir. 

1969). 

Maine 

Yes. “One who commits a trespass to a chattel is liable to the possessor of the 

chattel if the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value.” Pearl 

Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 326, 354 (D. Me. 2003). 

Massachusetts 

“One who commits a trespass to chattels is subject to liability to the possessor of 

the chattel if, but only if, (a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or (b) the 

chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or (c) the possessor is 

deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or (d) bodily harm is 

caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the 

possessor has a legally protected interest.” Smith v. Wright, 2013 Mass. App. 

Div. 24, *6 (Dist. Ct. 2013) (quoting Restatement, Second, Torts § 218 (1965). 

Ohio 

Yes. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015, 1023 (S.D. 

Ohio 1997). 

Texas 

Requires wrongful interference with another’s use or possession of property; (2) 

actual damage to the property or deprivation of the owner’s use of the property for 

a substantial period of time. Zapata v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 615 S.W. 2d 198, 

201 (Tex. 1981). 

Washington 

“[T]he interest of a possessor of a chattel in its inviolability, unlike the similar 

interest of a possessor of land, is not given legal protection by an action for 

nominal damages for harmless intermeddlings with the chattel. Therefore, one 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 29 of 31
 30 

who intentionally intermeddles with another’s chattel is subject to liability only if 

his intermeddling is harmful to the possessor’s materially valuable interest in the 

physical condition, quality, or value of the chattel, or if the possessor is deprived 

of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or some other legally protected 

interest of the possessor is affected....” Del Vecchio v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 

C11-366RSL, 2012 WL 1997697, at *8 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2012) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). 

Examples of States Where Any 

Interference is Actionable 

Alabama 

“Because ‘[a] dispossession is always a trespass to the chattel, and subjects the 

actor to liability for at least nominal damages for the interference with the 

possession,’”Poff v. Hayes, 763 So. 2d 234, 239 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Restatement, 

§ 222 cmt. a). 

Florida 

“[A]ny unlawful interference, however slight, with another’s enjoyment of his or 

her personal property is a trespass, forcible dispossession being unnecessary as a 

rule.” Am. Fed’n of Labor-Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. City of Miami, No. 

07-22966-CIV, 2008 WL 11333331, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal 

citations omitted). 

Iowa 

As to damages, “[t]he law infers, without proof of actual injury, some damages 

from every direct invasion of the ... property of another.” 75 Am.Jur.2d Trespass § 

157 (1991) (hereinafter “Trespass”). Thus, it is irrelevant that Sheridan has not 

offered proof of any damages, or loss in value. If a party cannot prove actual 

injury, the law entitles him to recover nominal damages. Id. at § 161. Sheridan v. 

City of Des Moines, No. 4-00-CV-90024, 2000 WL 35626707, at *4 (S.D. Iowa 

Aug. 10, 2000). 

Examples of States With Statutes of 

Limitations of Two Years or Less 

Alaska Two (2) years. Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070.

Arizona Two (2) years. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-542. 

Hawaii Two (2) years. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 657-7 (West). 

Indiana Two (2) years. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-2-4 (West). 

Kansas Two (2) years. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(2) (West). 

Kentucky Two (2) years. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.125 (West). 

Louisiana One (1) year. La. Civ. Code art. 3492. 

Montana Two (2) years. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-207(2) (West). 

Oklahoma Two years. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 95(3) (West). 

Pennsylvania Two (2) years. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5524(3). 

Texas Two (2) years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003 (West). 

West Virginia Two (2) years. W.Va. Code Ann. § 55-2-12(a) (West). 

Examples of States With Statutes of 

Limitations of More than Two 

Years 

Alabama Six (6) years. Al. Code § 6-2-34(2).

Arkansas Three (3) years. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (West). 

California Three (3) years. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338 (c)

Colorado Three (3) years. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-80-101(1)(h) (West). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 30 of 31
 31 

Connecticut 

Three (3) years. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-577 (West); 2 years from discovery if 

by negligent, reckless or wanton conduct, with maximum three years from wrong. 

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-584 (West). 

Delaware Three (3) years. Del. Code Ann. tit. 10 § 8106 (West). 

District of Columbia Three (3) years. D.C. Code Ann. § 12-301(2) (West). 

Florida 

“The statute of limitations on trespass to chattels and conversion in Florida is four 

years.” Bloom v. Miami-Dade Cty., No. 06-21879-CIV, 2010 WL 9499082, at *3 

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010), aff’d sub nom. Bloom v. Alvereze, 498 F. App’x 867 

(11th Cir. 2012) (citing Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(h)). 

Georgia Four (4) years. Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-31 (West). 

Idaho Three (3) years. Idaho Code Ann. § 5-218(3) (West). 

Illinois Five (5) years after cause of action accrues. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-205. 

Iowa Five (5) years. Iowa Code Ann. § 614.1(4). 

Maine Six (6) years. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14 § 752. 

Maryland Three (3) years. Md. Code Ann., Cst. & Jud. Proc § 5-101 (West). 

Massachusetts Three (3) years. Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 260 § 2A. 

Michigan Three (3) years. Mich. Comp. L. Ann. § 600.5805(10). 

Minnesota Six (6) years. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 541.05. 

Mississippi Three (3) years. Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49(1). 

Missouri Five (5) years. Mo. Ann. Stat. §516.120(4). 

Nebraska Four (4) years. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-207. 

Nevada Three (3) years. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11.190-(3)(c ) (West). 

New Hampshire Three (3) years. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:4. 

New Jersey Six (6) years. N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1. 

New Mexico Four (4) years. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-4. 

New York Three (3) years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. §214. 

North Carolina Three (3) years. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1-52(4) 

North Dakota Six (6) years. N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 28-01-16(4) (West). 

Ohio Four (4) years. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.09(B). 

Oregon Six (6) years. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12.080 (West). 

Rhode Island Ten (10) years. R.I. Gen Laws §9-1-13. 

South Carolina Three (3) years. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530. 

South Dakota Six (6) years. S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-13. 

Tennessee Three (3) years. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105. 

Utah Three (3) years. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-305. 

Vermont Three (3) years. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 § 512(5). 

Virginia Five (5) years. Dominion Res. Servs., Inc. v. 5K Logistics, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-315, 

2009 WL 2461396 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2009). 

Washington Three (3) years. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.080(2). 

Wisconsin Six (6) years. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.52 (West). 

Wyoming Four (4) years. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-105(a)(iv)(B) (West). 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 201-7 Filed 06/15/18 Page 31 of 31