Court Opinion

ID: 9494626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:42:44.130523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:31.522562
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The panel majority has written a thoughtful opinion. I write separately for two reasons. First, I think it would be helpful to the bench and bar to note precisely the point that we clarify today. Secondly, I wish to express my reservations about commenting unnecessarily on the settled law of the circuit with respect to equitable estoppel.
At the outset, I note that today’s decision, following this circuit’s cornerstone opinion in Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir.1990), makes clear the difference between equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. Equitable tolling permits a plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if, despite all diligence, he is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim. By contrast, the doctrine of equitable estoppel comes into play if the defendant takes active steps to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time as by promising not to plead the statute of limitations. Equitable estoppel in the limitations setting is sometimes called fraudulent concealment and must not be confused with efforts by a defendant in a fraud case to conceal fraud. Fraudulent concealment in the law of limitations presupposes that the plaintiff has discovered or, as required by the discovery rule, should have discovered, that the defendant injured him. It denotes efforts by the defendant, above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiffs claim is founded, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time.
The case before us involves the first of these doctrines, the doctrine of equitable tolling. Mr. Shropshear argues that his own lawyer and another private entity not in privity with the defendant City of Chicago concealed his claim by misrepresenting that they would file an action on his behalf. Therefore, we must identify the applicable law for determining whether Mr. Shrop-shear can invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. The majority opinion, clarifying the law of this circuit and harmonizing that law with the law of all other circuits that have addressed the matter, holds that, because we must borrow state law with respect to the statute of limitations, we also must borrow state law on the doctrine of equitable tolling. I do not think that there is very much in the way of a serious dispute on this issue. As the panel opinion makes clear, the reason for this symmetry is that there is a reciprocal relationship between the length of the limitations period and the grounds for extending it. See generally Cange v. Stotler & Co., 826 F.2d 581, 586-87 (7th Cir.1987).
However, there has been some confusion as to whether, in an equitable tolling situation, state law ought to be the exclusive source to which a court ought to turn or whether the court also ought to apply federal tolling principles. As the court noted in Smith v. City of Chicago Heights, 951 F.2d 834, 840 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1992), this issue can be traced back to the court’s holding in Suslick v. Rothschild Securities Corp., 741 F.2d 1000, 1004 (7th Cir.1984) (holding that both state and federal rules of equitable tolling should be applied when a state statute of limitations is employed), overruled on other grounds by Short v. Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co., 908 F.2d 1385 (7th Cir.1990); see also Cange, 826 F.2d at 587 n. 4 (noting in dicta the holding of Suslick in this circuit). In Smith, the court acknowledged the rule in Suslick and *600applied it because it remained the law of the circuit. See Smith, 951 F.2d at 840. By contrast, in Gonzalez v. Entress, 133 F.3d 551, 554 (7th Cir.1998), the court simply applied state tolling law without a discussion of the rule in Suslick. If there is an intracircuit conflict, it is on this question, simply because Smith did not overrule Suslick and Gonzalez did not speak to the problem. It is this piggybacking issue to which the court also made reference in Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 463-64 (7th Cir.1998); see also Reed v. Mokena Sch. Dist. No. 159, 41 F.3d 1153, 1155 n. 1 (7th Cir.1994).
Today, we take the view that only state tolling rules ought to apply. Application of both state and federal rules destroys the symbiotic relationship between the period set forth in the statute of limitations and the tolling rule. As we noted in Cange, the tolling rule is a “part of the legislative balance of conflicting interests of enforcement and staleness of claims embodied in statutes of limitations.” 826 F.2d at 587.
If the panel opinion were to end at this point, I would have no objection to its content. My colleagues have chosen, however, to express their views on whether state law should also govern with respect to equitable estoppel. The concept of equitable estoppel is not at issue in this case. As the court acknowledged in Ashafa, we have held that federal, not state, standards apply when this doctrine is applicable. Ashafa, 146 F.3d at 462; see also Smith, 951 F.2d at 841. In Cange, 826 F.2d at 586-87, and earlier in Bomba v. W.L. Belvidere, Inc., 579 F.2d 1067, 1070 (7th Cir. 1978), the court noted that the concept of equitable estoppel is not tied to the legislative judgment on the length of the statute of limitations. Rather, it focuses on the circumstances that will justify preventing a party from relying on the statute of limitations because that party’s conduct has induced another into forbearing suit within the applicable statute of limitations period. As the court wrote in Bomba, the doctrine “takes its life, not from the language of the statute, but from the equitable principle that no man will be permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing in a court of justice.” 579 F.2d at 1070. Because this issue is not before us and has not been briefed by the parties, I believe that a proper respect for the work of our colleagues in prior cases and for the stability of the law in this circuit requires that we refrain from commenting on the matter.