Opinion ID: 3134239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: False Light Counts

Text: We next consider whether counts V and VI of the plaintiff's complaint, which attempt to state a cause of action for false light, were properly dismissed. As previously noted, the defendants filed a section 2--619 motion to dismiss those counts on the ground that they were barred by the applicable statute of limitation. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, relying upon the appellate court decision in Starnes v. International Harvester Co., 184 Ill. App. 3d 199 (1989). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of counts V and VI, quoting Starnes, 184 Ill. App. 3d at 206, for the proposition that [a]n amendment asserting new causes of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitations has run. The limitations period for invasion of privacy claims and for defamation claims is one year after the cause of action accrues. 735 ILCS 5/13--201 (West 1992). Here, the cause of action accrued in March 1991, when the article Bryson was published in Seventeen magazine. As previously noted, the plaintiff filed her original complaint in the United States district court on August 6, 1991. That action was dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction in June 1992. The plaintiff refiled her action in the circuit court of St. Clair County in June 1992, pursuant to section 13--217 of the Limitations Act (735 ILCS 5/13--217 (West 1992)). That section provides: In the actions specified in Article XIII of this Act or any other act or contract where the time for commencing an action is limited, if  the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such action, the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after  the action is dismissed by a United States District Court for lack of jurisdiction. 735 ILCS 5/13--217 (West 1992). Section 13--217 gave the plaintiff an absolute right to refile the same cause of action in the circuit court after that action was dismissed in the federal district court for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See Gonzalez v. Thorek Hospital & Medical Center, 143