Court Opinion

ID: 2964767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:44.617702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.112141
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1530 

                                LENORA SPAIN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                             DEMETRIOS HASEOTES, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Stanley R. Cohen on brief for appellants.
            ________________
            Philip J. Moss and  Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on  brief
            ______________      ____________________________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     JUNE 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record
                      __________

            and  the  parties' briefs,  we  affirm  the  judgment of  the
                                            ______

            district court  dismissing the complaint  of the  plaintiffs-

            appellants.    In  so  doing,  we  essentially  rely  on  the

            reasoning contained  in that  court's order, dated  August 9,

            1995.  We add only the following comments.

                           The state common law  claims of the plaintiffs

            are governed by state  law.  In cases  based on diversity  of

            citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the  federal district

            court must apply the forum state's  choice-of-law rules.  See
                                                                      ___

            Klaxon  Co.  v. Stentor  Elec. Mfg.  Co.,  313 U.S.  487, 496
            ___________     ________________________

            (1941);  Rogers v.  Grimaldi,  875 F.2d  994,  1002 (2d  Cir.
                     ______     ________

            1989).    Thus, we  look  to Massachusetts  conflicts  law to

            determine   what   limitations   period   it   would   apply.

            Massachusetts, in  turn, uses "the traditional  rule that the

            local law of the forum determines whether an action is barred

            by a statute of  limitations."  Hemric v. Reed &  Prince Mfg.
                                            ______    ___________________

            Co.,  739  F.2d  1,   2-3  (1st  Cir.  1984)  (applying   the
            ___

            Massachusetts statute of  limitations to a  claim based on  a

            tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach.
                                                    _____    ____________

            Works, Inc., 417 Mass.  643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832,  834 (1994)
            ___________

            (Massachusetts   considers   statutes   of   limitations   as

            procedural and,  as the forum state, applies its own law).

                      The limitations  period for torts  in Massachusetts

            is three years.  See M.G.L.c. 260,   2A.  Similarly, a three-
                             ___

                                         -2-

            year limitations period  governs plaintiffs' claims based  on

            the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.   Id.   5B.   Because the
                                                  ___

            case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of

            the plaintiffs'  tort claims accrued, these  claims are time-

            barred.   We  can see  no  reason to  apply  the doctrine  of

            fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.

                      The judgment of the  district court is affirmed and
                                                             ________

            all pending motions are therefore denied as moot.
                                              ______

                                         -3-