Opinion ID: 163868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the Statute of Limitations Defense an Affirmative Defense?

Text: 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), a defense is waivable if it is an affirmative defense. See Bentley v. Cleveland County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 41 F.3d 600, 604 (10th Cir.1994) (Failure to plead an affirmative defense results in a waiver of that defense.) (citing Fed R. Civ.P. 8(c) and 2A James W. Moore, et al., Moore's Fed. Prac. ¶ 8.27(3) (2d ed.1994)). Rule 8(c) of both the federal and the Utah rules of civil procedure states: Affirmative Defenses. In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, ... statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. Fed R.Civ.P. 8(c); Utah R.Civ.P. 8(c) (emphasis added). Interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are persuasive where the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure are `substantially similar' to the federal rules. Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 53 P.3d 947, 949 n. 2 (Utah 2002). 20 Although we hold on independent grounds that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, it is noteworthy that the defendants themselves initially treated it as such. See Aplts' App. at 12 (Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, filed Jan. 19, 1999) (FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Some of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the relevant statute of limitations) (capitalization in original). The defendants nevertheless argued to the district court that the statute of limitations is an element of Ms. Youren's case and not an affirmative defense. Aplts' App. at 66-67 (Proposition of Law Memorandum re: It is an Element of Plaintiffs' Case to Show She Filed Her Whistleblower Action Timely, filed Mar. 23, 2001). The parties renew that argument here. 21 Several of our sister circuits have indeed created an exception to Rule 8(c), holding that there are situations in which a statute of limitations acts as a condition precedent to the suit rather than as a classic affirmative defense. See Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indem. Co., 795 F.2d 538, 547 (6th Cir.1986); Emmons v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 701 F.2d 1112, 1117-18 (5th Cir.1983). Because Rule 8(c) explicitly lists the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, we are hesitant to carve out an exception absent strong reason to do so. 22 The exceptions noted by the defendants are tied to unique features of the specific statutes at issue in those cases. In Ford Motor, for example, the Sixth Circuit noted that [t]he nine month filing provision of the Uniform Bill of Straight Lading at issue emanates from 49 U.S.C. § 11707(e)(1982), which provides that `[a] carrier may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than 9 months for filing a claim ....' 795 F.2d at 547. The court ruled that this makes the statute of limitations an element of the cause of action. Id. 23 Similarly, in Emmons, the Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., imposed a burden on the plaintiff to file a claim within the three-year statute of limitations, 45 U.S.C. § 56 (No action shall be maintained under this chapter unless commenced within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.). The court construed that language to mean that [f]ailure to timely bring suit not only bars the claimant's remedy, but it also destroys the employer's liability. 701 F.2d at 1117. Both circuits relied upon Goodwin v. Townsend, 197 F.2d 970, 971 (3d Cir.1952), which states that when a statute of limitations is thus made a limitation upon the continued existence of the right, rather than a mere bar to suit upon it, it is not an affirmative defense and cannot be waived. 24 The Whistleblower Act phrases its statute of limitations permissively, specifying that an employee may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or actual damages, or both, within 180 days. Utah Code Ann. § 67-21-4(2). This language indicates that the existence of the public employee's right (the right, that is, not to suffer adverse action for reporting legal violations) is not predicated on the filing of suit within the limitations period, but simply that the right may not be vindicated if suit is not timely filed. Thus, the limitations period here is a mere bar to suit upon Ms. Youren's rights. Goodwin, 197 F.2d at 971. The statute of limitations defense is thus a classic affirmative defense and not a condition precedent to the suit. 25 Accordingly, the statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense and is subject to waiver. See Bentley, 41 F.3d at 604. 26