Opinion ID: 6226552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cobb’s Counterarguments

Text: Cobb asserts two theories for why his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations: (1) the continuing-wrongs doctrine; and (2) equitable tolling. We address each in turn.
Under the continuing-wrongs doctrine, when a tort “involves a continuing or repeated injury . . . , [the] limitations begin to run from, the date of the last injury.” Tiberi v. Cigna Corp., 89 F.3d 1423, 1430 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting 54 C.J.S. Limitation of Actions § 177 (1987)); see also Wing v. Lorton, 261 P.3d 1122, 1126 n.1 (Okla. 2011) (same). Said another way, “the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrong is over and done with.” Tiberi, 89 F.3d at 1430–31 (citation omitted). According to Cobb, Tinker’s and Attorney Defendants’ wrongful actions included not only their wrongful attempts to collect without a JE, but also their motions and appeals in “pursuit of obtaining a JE to continue their collection actions.” Cobb Opening Br. at 13. So he argues that his abuse-of-process and FDCPA 7 Appellate Case: 21-6020 Document: 010110646218 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Page: 8 claims did not accrue until Tinker’s and Attorney Defendants’ appeals had ceased on October 17, 2019, the date the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s mandate issued. But Tinker’s and Attorney Defendants’ motions and appeals to settle the missing-JE issue are not continuing wrongs. We have held that subsequent appeals are generally not continuing violations. See Turner v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 757 F. App’x 715, 720 (10th Cir. 2018) (“The subsequent stay of enforcement and appellate review . . . is not a continuing violation of [the plaintiff]’s constitutional rights.”); see also Mata v. Anderson, 635 F.3d 1250, 1253 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the continuing-wrongs doctrine applies to “continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from the original violation” (citation omitted)). The only case Cobb cites to support his continuing-wrongs theory is a decadesold, out-of-circuit opinion, which stated that sometimes a continuing wrong “may be perpetuated by otherwise legal actions, such as appealing the court decision in this case.” Gordan v. City of Warren, 579 F.2d 386, 391 (6th Cir. 1978). In Gordan, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that the “continuing wrong” was the constitutional violation of taking the plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. Id. It then explained that the defendants’ subsequent appeals “perpetuated” that wrong by making “it impossible for the plaintiffs to enjoy the use of their property[.]” Id. Unlike Gordan, Tinker’s and Attorneys’ Defendants’ motions and appeals did not “perpetuate” Cobb’s alleged wrong of collecting against him without a JE. As discussed, Tinker’s and Attorney Defendants’ violations were “over and done with” in October 2016— when they last tried to collect without a JE. Tiberi, 89 F.3d at 1431. 8 Appellate Case: 21-6020 Document: 010110646218 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Page: 9 In sum, the district court did not err by declining to apply the continuing- wrongs doctrine to Cobb’s abuse-of-process and FDCPA claims.
Next, Cobb argues that the district court erred by not equitably tolling the statute of limitations for his claims. When a district court declines to apply equitable tolling, we review for abuse of discretion. Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). “In the appropriate case, exceptional circumstances may justify tolling a statute of limitations.” Id. at 1219. Cobb insists that this case’s state-court litigation, including the appeals, constituted exceptional circumstances. Yet, as the district court pointed out, Cobb cites no authority to support his argument; he simply asserts that equitable tolling is justified given the case’s “unique procedural history.” Cobb Opening Br. at 18. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to equitably toll the limitations period for Cobb’s claims.