Opinion ID: 167403
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Equitable Tolling is Available to Excuse Late Filings Based on Counsel's Legal Errors

Text: 25 The parties do not dispute that AIR21's statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and is therefore subject to equitable tolling. Resp't Br. at 11; see Intervenor Br. at 6. They dispute whether equitable tolling can be applied in this case. 26 Statutes of limitations are primarily designed to assure fairness to defendants. Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965). They promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974) (quotation omitted). The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them. Id. (quotation omitted). But [t]his policy of repose, designed to protect defendants, is frequently outweighed ... where the interests of justice require vindication of the plaintiff's rights. Burnett, 380 U.S. at 428, 85 S.Ct. 1050. Thus, equitable tolling excuses a plaintiff's untimely filing of a federal claim when the court determines that Congress intended that the plaintiff's federal rights should be enforced, despite his untimely filing. See id. at 426-27, 85 S.Ct. 1050. 27 The Supreme Court ha[s] allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period. Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 & n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court tolled the statute of limitations when a federal suit was mistakenly filed initially in a city court, reasoning that 28 [a]n action is `commenced' [within the meaning of the relevant federal statute] when instituted by service of process issued out of a state court, even if one which itself is unable to proceed to judgment, if the state law or practice directs or permits the transfer through change of venue or otherwise to a court which does have jurisdiction to hear, try, and otherwise determine that cause. 29 Herb v. Pitcairn, 325 U.S. 77, 78-79, 65 S.Ct. 954, 89 L.Ed. 1483 (1945). 30 The Court also excused a late filing in federal court where counsel simply made a mistake by filing his client's federal claim initially in the wrong venue of a state court and it was dismissed for improper venue because the state had no statute allowing the suit to be transferred to the proper venue. Burnett, 380 U.S. at 426, 432-33, 85 S.Ct. 1050. The Court reasoned that Congress did not intend to bar a suit where 31 [p]etitioner ... did not sleep on his rights but brought an action within the statutory period in the state court of competent jurisdiction [but improper venue]. Service of process was made upon the respondent notifying him that petitioner was asserting his cause of action.... Petitioner, then, failed to file an... action in the federal courts, not because he was disinterested, but solely because he felt that his state action was sufficient [to assert the very same claim]. 32 Id. at 429, 85 S.Ct. 1050 (bracketed sections added). 33 The Court also tolled the statute of limitations on motions to intervene in a lawsuit by potential members of a class action, after the trial court ruled that the case would not proceed as a class action because the class was not so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable. Am. Pipe & Const. Co., 414 U.S. at 552-56, 94 S.Ct. 756. The Court reasoned that the initial filing by the purported class representative put the defendants on notice [w]ithin the period set by the statute of limitations, [of the] essential information necessary to determine both the subject matter and size of the prospective litigation, even if the actual trial would proceed as a principal suit with additional intervenors instead of as a class action. Id. at 554-55, 94 S.Ct. 756. This tolling rule has also been extended to include putative class members who later seek to file independent actions. Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 353-54, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983). 34 These Supreme Court cases appear favorable to petitioner, who argues that he did not sleep on his rights, but timely put NORDAM on notice that he was asserting a whistleblower action against the company by filing suit in state court. See Pet'r Br. at 9-13. To paraphrase a statement in Burnett, NORDAM could not have relied on the policy of repose since it filed a notice of removal asserting the complete preemption of petitioner's state claim, showing that NORDAM knew that an AIR21 claim had been timely filed against it. See Burnett, 380 U.S. at 429-30, 85 S.Ct. 1050. Here, the state court, and in fact the federal district court, could not have adjudicated petitioner's AIR21 claim because the statute requires that the claim be filed initially with the Department of Labor. We have found no authority that would have allowed the case to be transferred from either the state court or the district court to the administrative agency. Nevertheless, the holding in Burnett suggests that it is not always necessary that the case be transferable to the correct tribunal for tolling to apply. See id. at 426, 432-33, 85 S.Ct. 1050. 35 We have noted the Supreme Court's comment that it ha[s] allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period. E.g., Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir.2002) (quoting Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 453). Petitioner argues that his timely state court complaint was a defective pleading to which equitable tolling applies, and correctly asserts that we have never defined a defective pleading. 36 Because a defective pleading has never been clearly defined by either the Supreme Court or this court and none of the cases address AIR21, however, these cases do not compel a decision in favor of petitioner in this case. 37 B. Equitable Tolling is Not Available Where Separate, Distinct, and Independent Remedies Exist, and Plaintiff Sleeps on His Rights with Regard to One of Them 38 As noted above, the Department of Labor and NORDAM argue that this case is controlled by Johnson, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295, which they contend requires a complete identity of claims between the timely filing in the wrong tribunal and the later, untimely filing in the correct tribunal, and which they contend is factually similar to this case. See Intervenor Br. at 9; see also Resp't Br. at 16-17. Indeed, Johnson was the basis for the second corollary the ALJ and the ARB used in their test for equitable tolling. See Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. C at 2. Unlike the parties, we do not believe that the legal holding of Johnson is a problem for petitioner. More importantly, Johnson is clearly distinguishable on the facts. 39 In Johnson, the plaintiff filed a timely discrimination claim against his employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which, after a lengthy administrative delay in issuing the right-to-sue letter, eventually led to plaintiff filing a complaint under Title VII, and then later filing a supplemental complaint adding a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Johnson, 421 U.S. at 455-56, 95 S.Ct. 1716. The § 1981 claim was dismissed as untimely. Id. at 456, 95 S.Ct. 1716. Plaintiff argued that the timely filing of his administrative complaint with the EEOC tolled the statute of limitations on his § 1981 claim. Id. at 457, 95 S.Ct. 1716. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that equitable tolling does not apply when the plaintiff has separate, distinct, and independent remedies, and has simply slept on his rights with regard to one of them. Id. at 461, 465-66, 95 S.Ct. 1716. Therefore, the timely filing of the Title VII claim was not sufficient to lead to tolling on the § 1981 claim. 40 The Department of Labor argues that this is the case here — that petitioner slept on his rights with regard to his AIR21 claim. Resp't Br. at 16-17. But the district court's holding that petitioner's state wrongful discharge claim was completely preempted and replaced by AIR21 means that petitioner had no separate, distinct, and independent remedy under state law; the only remedy petitioner had for the alleged wrongful discharge from his aviation-related job was AIR21. Indeed, that argument was the basis of NORDAM's notice of removal. See Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. B at 1-2. 41 Neither the ALJ nor the ARB purported to decide anew whether petitioner's state wrongful discharge claim was completely preempted, and their decisions do not dispute the district court's holding on this point, although they misstated the district court's holding, saying that the court held that petitioner's state claim was preempted rather than completely preempted. Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. C. at 2; Doc. 21, at 2. This is a meaningful difference. Under our case law, a completely preempted state claim states a federal claim. Therefore, the agency's grant of summary judgment in favor of NORDAM based on the conclusion that petitioner did not establish the complete identity of claims for purposes of equitable tolling was wrong. 42 C. Preemption (Defensive) v. Complete Preemption (Artful Pleading) 43 In deciding whether [a] suit arises under federal law, [the court] is guided generally by the `well-pleaded complaint' rule, under which a suit arises under federal law `only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based' on federal law. Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336, 1339 (10th Cir.1996). Neither the plaintiff's anticipation of a federal defense nor the defendant's assertion of a federal defense is sufficient to make the case arise under federal law. Id. The plaintiff is the `master of the claim' and may prevent removal [to federal court] by choosing not to plead a federal claim even if one is available. Id. (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987)). Under the `artful pleading' doctrine, however, a plaintiff may not defeat removal by failing to plead federal questions that are essential elements of the plaintiff's claim. Id. (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 22, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983)). 44 The `complete preemption' doctrine has been referred to as a corollary or an exception to the well pleaded complaint rule. Id. (citations omitted). When the doctrine is properly invoked, a complaint alleging only a state law cause of action may be removed to federal court on the theory that federal preemption makes the state law claim `necessarily federal in character.' Id. (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987)). A completely preempted claim becomes a federal claim and can be the basis for removal jurisdiction. Coldesina v. Estate of Simper, 407 F.3d 1126, 1137 (10th Cir.2005). [A] state law claim is only `completely preempted' under Taylor if it can be recharacterized as a claim under [federal law]. See Felix v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir.2004); accord Schmeling, 97 F.3d at 1342 (holding that tension in Supreme Court cases can be resolved by reading complete preemption as a term of art— a description of the specific situation in which a federal law not only preempts a state law to some degree but also substitutes a federal cause of action for the state cause of action, thereby manifesting Congress's intent to permit removal). But cf. Coldesina, 407 F.3d at 1139 (holding that inability to recast plaintiff's completely preempted state law claim as a federal claim simply left plaintiff without a remedy). 45 Under the description of complete preemption set out above, it is irrelevant what law the plaintiff cited in his state complaint, once the court decided that his purported state claim was completely preempted by and actually arose under federal law. See, e.g., Schmeling, 97 F.3d at 1339 (noting that plaintiff may not defeat removal by failing to plead federal questions that are essential elements of the plaintiff's claim). As a result, the agency's insistence in this case that petitioner's state claim did not state an AIR21 claim because he did not cite AIR21 is unfounded. The ALJ's and the ARB's misstatement of the district court's holding indicate that these tribunals did not appreciate the distinction between a preempted claim and a completely preempted claim. See Admin. R., Doc. 17, Ex. C at 2; Doc. 21, at 2. Otherwise, their conclusions would have been different on equitable tolling, at least under the principles they purported to be following.