Opinion ID: 2325365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harodite's Petition for Issuance of Writ of Certiorari

Text: Harodite filed a petition for issuance of writ of certiorari with this Court on July 22, 2009; that petition was granted on December 22, 2009. In the order granting Harodite's petition, the parties were also directed to address the issue of whether the Rhode Island or Massachusetts statute of limitations is applicable to the claims asserted by the petitioner in its proposed amended complaint. Before us, Harodite contends: (1) that it was an abuse of discretion for the Superior Court to deny the motion to amend its complaint; (2) that, under any analysis, Rhode Island's statute of limitations should apply; (3) that the vast majority of states treat statutes of limitation as procedural and apply the forum's statute to common law causes of action that accrued elsewhere; and (4) that the claims set forth in the proposed amended complaint relate back to the filing of the initial complaint pursuant to Rule 15(c). For its part, Warren Electric contends: (1) that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's inexcusably delayed motion to amend; (2) that Massachusetts statutes of limitations should apply because Massachusetts bears the most significant relationship to the oil spill, the conduct that allegedly caused [the spill,] and [to] the parties; (3) that, even though the Superior Court erred in concluding that Rhode Island law applies, the Superior Court correctly applied the interest-weighing approach to the statute of limitations analysis; and (4) that, if the Massachusetts statutes of limitations apply, Harodite's proposed amendment should be denied as futile.