Court Opinion

ID: 9569674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:16:17.446655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:43.769275
License: Public Domain

GEER, Judge,
concurring.
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately simply to make some additional points with respect to the application of the pertinent statutes of limitation to plaintiffs’ claims. These observations provide additional support for the conclusions reached by the majority opinion.
With respect to the state law claims, plaintiffs assert that they “did not have reasonable knowledge that the funds and assets had been formally forfeited until September 5, 2007.” Although this argument presumes that a discovery rule applies, plaintiffs cite no authority in support of this assumption. The only statutory provision that could arguably apply is the “discovery rule” set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) (2007). That provision, however, only governs causes of action “for personal injury or physical damage to claimant’s property.” Id. Since plaintiffs’ claims involve only pecuniary losses or the failure to return property, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) cannot apply. See White v. Consol. Planning, Inc., 166 N.C. App. 283, 310, 603 S.E.2d 147, 165 (2004) (holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16) did not apply with respect to claim that defendant converted plaintiff’s funds because he did not physically damage plaintiff’s property), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 286, 610 S.E.2d 717 (2005). Consequently, the date that plaintiffs obtained knowledge that the funds and assets had been forfeited is immaterial.
With respect to plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim, we cannot disregard plaintiffs’ federal action filed on 17 August 2006. The federal complaint was essentially identical to this action, but added a claim for declaratory relief. Although on 23 July 2007, the federal court dismissed on various grounds almost all of plaintiffs’ claims, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim “seeking an injunction ordering the return of seized property.” As a result, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim for an injunction requiring the return of the property that defendants had seized remained pending in federal court at the time plaintiffs filed this action, asserting an identical claim under § 1983 that seeks, in part, the return of the seized property.
*74Defendants have not argued that the § 1983 claim filed in federal court was untimely. This Court has held that “filing an action in federal court which is based on state substantive law does toll the statute of limitations while that action is pending.” Clark v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 110 N.C. App. 803, 808, 431 S.E.2d 227, 229 (1993), aff'd per curiam, 336 N.C. 599, 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994). The reasoning in Clark should apply equally to a federal cause of action filed in federal court. Accordingly, the statute of limitations on plaintiffs’ § 1983 action for injunctive relief regarding the seized property was tolled by the filing of the federal action. Because thát action was still pending as to that claim at the time the state action was filed, plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim for injunctive relief cannot be barred by the statute of limitations, at least based on the current record. I would for that additional reason reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim.