No. 16-460 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ STEPHANIE C. ARTIS Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Respondent. ________ On Writ of Certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ________ BRIEF OF PETITIONER ________ DAVID A. STRAUSS MATTHEW S. HELLMAN SARAH M. KONSKY ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY JENNER & BLOCK Counsel of Record SUPREME COURT AND TASSITY S. JOHNSON* APPELLATE CLINIC AT JENNER & BLOCK LLP THE UNIVERSITY OF 1099 New York Ave., NW CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL Washington, DC 20001 1111 E. 60th Street (202) 639-6000 Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected] DONALD M. TEMPLE TEMPLE LAW OFFICES 1310 L Street, NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20005 *Not admitted in D.C. Only admitted in Connecticut. i QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1367 of Title 28 authorizes federal district courts in certain circumstances to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under State law. Section 1367 further provides that “[t]he period of limitations for any [such] claim … shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). The question presented is whether the tolling provision in § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for the state-law claim while the federal suit is pending and for thirty days after the claim is dismissed, or whether the tolling provision does not suspend the limitations period but merely provides 30 days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to refile. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... iv OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ................................................................. 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................ 3 A. Statutory Background ...................................... 4 B. Factual and Procedural Background. ............. 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................... 12 ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 17 I. Section 1367’s Plain Text Establishes That Petitioner’s Suit Is Timely. ........................................ 17 A. Section 1367(d) Suspends The Statute Of Limitations For Supplemental Claims While They Are Pending In Federal Court And For 30 Days After Dismissal. .......................................................... 17 B. The Grace Period Interpretation Cannot Be Reconciled With § 1367(d)’s Text.................................................................... 22 II. Interpreting “Tolled” To Mean “Suspended” Serves § 1367’s Purposes. ........................................... 26 A. Giving § 1367(d) Its Plain Meaning Carries Out Congress’s Purpose. .................. 26 iii B. The Court Below Misconstrued § 1367’s Legislative History And Ignored This Court’s Precedent. ................... 29 CONCLUSION ................................................................. 35 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ....................................... 18, 27, 28 Artis v. District of Columbia, 51 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D.D.C. 2014) ........................................................ 9 BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004) ................................................................... 26 Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (1988) ................... 18 Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 399 (2012) ................ 17 Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650 (1983) .......... 24 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) ...................... 23 CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014) .......................................................................... 18 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) ............................ 4, 5, 16, 31 Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989) .............. 5 Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016) ........................................................ 33 Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003) .......................................................... 7, 16, 32, 34 Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975) .......................................................... 19 Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (2015) ......... 19 v Leh v. General Petroleum Corp., 382 U.S. 54 (1965) .......................................................................... 19 Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) .................... 19 Raygor v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (2002) ......................................... 7, 12, 20 Stephenson v. American Dental Ass’n, 789 A.2d 1248 (D.C. 2002) .............................................. 10 Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 493 (1870) ......... 32 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) ................ 19 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) ............................................................ 5 United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 (1991) ................. 18 United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) ................ 34 United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) ................................................... 17 Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) ..................................................... 33 Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012) .................... 19 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii) ............................................ 22 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(iv) .......................................... 22 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(g) ........................................................ 22 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A) ............................................. 22 12 U.S.C. § 1831q(k)(1) ................................................. 22 12 U.S.C. § 3419 ............................................................ 22 vi 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f) ...................................................... 22 15 U.S.C. § 6603(h)(5) ................................................... 22 15 U.S.C. § 6606 ............................................................ 22 15 U.S.C. § 6614(c)(3)(C) .............................................. 22 18 U.S.C. § 2712(e) ........................................................ 22 18 U.S.C. app. 2 § 2, art. VI(a) .................................... 22 21 U.S.C. § 1604(b)(3)(C) ....................................... 21, 22 28 U.S.C. § 1257 .............................................................. 1 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ............................................................ 12 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(D) ..................................... 21, 22 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ................................................... passim 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ...................................................... 1, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) ...................................................... 1, 6 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) ............................................... passim 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e) .......................................................... 6 28 U.S.C. § 1391 ............................................................ 30 28 U.S.C. § 2263(b) ........................................................ 22 28 U.S.C. § 2415(e) .................................................. 13, 25 29 U.S.C. § 1854(f) ........................................................ 22 33 U.S.C. § 913(d) .......................................................... 22 33 U.S.C. § 930(f) .......................................................... 22 42 U.S.C. § 233(p)(3)(A)(ii) .................................... 21, 22 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6e(d)(2) ............................................. 22 vii 42 U.S.C. § 4370m-2(c)(2)(G)(iii) ................................. 22 46 U.S.C. § 30508(d) ...................................................... 22 46 U.S.C. § 53911(d) ................................................ 21, 22 49 U.S.C. § 41714(i)(3) .................................................. 22 50 U.S.C. § 3936(a) ........................................................ 22 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12–504(A) .............................. 18 Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126 ......................................... 18 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111(1) .................................... 18 D.C. Code § 2-381.04(a) ................................................ 10 D.C. Code § 1-615.54(a)(2) ........................................... 10 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205 ...................................................... 18 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 100 ....................................... 18 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS H.R. Rep. No. 101-734 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6860 ................... 5-6, 7, 15, 29, 30 OTHER AUTHORITIES American Law Institute, Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts (1969) ...................................................... 29, 30 Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) ...................... 17 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) .................... 17 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ............................................ 28 viii Thomas M. Mengler et al., Congress Accepts Supreme Court’s Invitation to Codify Supplemental Jurisdiction, 74 Judicature 213 (1991) ................................................................... 31 Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1987) ........................................... 17 1 OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is reported at 135 A.3d 334, and is reprinted in the Appendix to the Petition (“Pet App.”) at 1a. The opinion of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia is unreported and is reprinted at Pet. App. 12a. JURISDICTION The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued its opinion on April 7, 2016. Petitioner’s timely petition for panel and en banc rehearing was denied on July 20, 2016. The jurisdiction of this Court is properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—