Opinion ID: 406168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of the Statute of Limitations

Text: 5 In our case the relevant statute of limitations would bar an action on matters arising more than three years before the complaint was filed. 7 In his motion for partial summary judgment plaintiff stated in the first paragraph of the required Statement of Material Facts As to Which There is No Genuine Issue: The events in this case on which the various Counts rest (within the exception of Counts 3 and 4) occurred on or before March of 1975. Since the original complaint was not filed until 3 October 1979-or over four and a half years later-it would appear that, except for counts 3 and 4, plaintiff is too late. 8 6 Plaintiff argues that because prior to FSIA-which became effective on 19 January 1977 9 -he could not have successfully maintained an action against defendants, the statute was tolled until that time and that therefore his filing in October 1979, a mere two and a half years later, was timely. 7 We reject this argument. While FSIA was by all accounts an important piece of legislation, it is a great exaggeration to say that plaintiff was without remedy before it became effective. Plaintiff asserts that prior to January 19, 1977, the restrictive principle of sovereign immunity (allowing foreign state entities to be sued for actions undertaken by them in a commercial capacity) ... was not yet the law of our land. 10 But, as the House Report on the Act points out, This principle was adopted by the Department of State in 1952 and has been followed by the courts and by the executive branch ever since. 11 It may be true, as plaintiff argues, that the Act curtailed the possibility of the Department of State intervening here with its own plea of sovereign immunity for defendants, removed certain procedural obstacles, and increased the property available to plaintiff for judgment. But to say that any action was effectively barred before FSIA is not true. The passage of any statute will have some effect on the likelihood of success of many actions; we must require the effect to be substantial or the exception plaintiff invokes will swallow the rule. We do not think that the passage of FSIA changed plaintiff's position so much that it was only at that time that the right to maintain the action accrue(d). 12 8 We therefore conclude that the statute of limitations bars all but counts 3 and 4 of plaintiff's complaint. 13