Opinion ID: 2600066
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Krauses made the necessary showing of pursing relief in a quasi-judicial forum.

Text: The fourth requirement for equitable tolling is that the plaintiff initially sought relief in a judicial or quasi-judicial governmental forum. [42] Judge White concluded that the Krauses' claims were time-barred for two reasons relating to this factor. First, Judge White seems to have agreed with the Borough's argument that collateral estoppel bars the Krauses from asserting that the Borough Manager is a quasi-judicial forum. [43] The Borough's collateral estoppel argument stems from Judge Cutler's decision denying the Krauses' BOAA appeal. In order to establish an issue, the doctrine of collateral estoppel requires that the parties and the issues litigated in the second action to be identical to those involved in the first action. [44] Judge Cutler's decision did not address the equitable tolling doctrine; it considered whether the BOAA had jurisdiction over an appeal of the Borough Manager's letter, and concluded that it did not. The decision does observe that the Borough Manager has no authority to act as a judge or quasi-judicial officer, but those observations support Judge Cutler's conclusion that the Borough Manager's letter was not an appealable order; she did not decide whether the Borough Manager was a quasi-judicial forum for equitable tolling purposes. The issue to be decided in the second actionwhether the Borough Manager is a quasi-judicial forum for purposes of equitable tollingis different than the issue in the first actionwhether the BOAA had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Borough Manager's letter. Therefore, the Borough's collateral estoppel argument is unavailing. Judge White's second reason for denying the Krauses' motion to amend was that their attempt to seek quasi-judicial relief through the BOAA ... was untimely. The court did not elaborate on this reason, and we believe it is susceptible to two meanings. First, the Borough and the individual defendants argued in the superior court that the Krauses waived their equitable tolling argument by failing to raise it in response to the motion to dismiss their complaint. If the court's reference to timeliness referred to the argument that the Krauses should have raised the doctrine of equitable tolling when the motion to dismiss was being decided, it overlooks that the court's order stated, [i]f Plaintiffs can assert facts which would toll the two-year statute of limitations, the court will consider a motion to amend Plaintiff's complaint. The other possible interpretation of Judge White's order is that the reference to timeliness reflects the court's conclusion that the Krauses could not rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling because they did not file their BOAA appeal within fifteen days from the date they learned of the Platting Board's decision. [45] If this was the court's reasoning, it reflects a misapplication of the equitable tolling doctrine. Equitable tolling is available in situations where plaintiffs have multiple legal remedies available to them. [46] Rather than require a plaintiff to simultaneously pursue separate remedies, this doctrine tolls the statute of limitations on one remedy while the plaintiff pursues an alternate remedy. [47] If the plaintiff's first attempt to obtain relief fails, the plaintiff can pursue the other remedy based on the same right or claim. [48] The statute of limitations is thus tolled during the pendency of the initial defective action. A plaintiff's second action is certainly timely when, as in this case, it is filed before the un-tolled time exceeds the applicable statute of limitations period. [49] The Krauses' equitable tolling argument does not depend upon whether their appeal to the BOAA was timely filed or successful. The issue is whether the Krauses' efforts to obtain relief from the BOAA tolled the one-year or two-year limitation periods for the claims in their amended complaint. As already explained, we believe the Krauses' amended complaint alleges facts that, if proven, satisfy the first three elements of the equitable tolling doctrinenotice of claims, lack of prejudice, and good faith. [50] As for the requirement that the Krauses pursued their initial relief in a judicial or quasi-judicial governmental forum, the Borough, the Christiansens, and individual defendants only argue that the Borough Manager is not a quasi-judicial governmental forum; they do not contest the BOAA's status as a quasi-judicial governmental forum. The Krauses pursued their appeal with the BOAA long before the statute of limitations expired on any of the claims in their amended complaint. [51] If the Krauses ultimately prove the elements of equitable tolling, then the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of their action before the BOAA and the claims in their amended superior court complaint are not time-barred. [52] Because the doctrine of equitable tolling may toll the statute of limitations on the claims in the Krauses' amended complaint, it was an abuse of discretion to deny them leave to amend.