Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Retail & E-Commerce newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (April 5, 2021, 2:26 PM EDT) -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Monday appeared poised to rule that its emergency order extending filing periods in civil cases in the early months of the pandemic should apply to all civil cases, not just those with deadlines that fell within the relevant period.
During oral arguments, members of the high court were skeptical about a narrow interpretation of its civil tolling provision that was put forward by counsel for Shaw's Supermarkets Inc.
The grocery company brought the appeal after a lower court said personal injury claims brought by Margarita Melendez, a woman who was hurt while shopping in the store Sept. 3, 2017, were affected by the high court's order even though the end of the three-year statute of limitations for the incident fell outside the tolling period.
Shaw's had argued the high court's pandemic orders, which tolled civil cases from March 17 to June 30, 2020, didn't extend the filing deadline of Melendez's case. But Melendez argued the tolling provision added more than 100 days to her filing period, giving her until Dec. 11 to file suit.
The lower court denied the grocery store's efforts to escape the case, saying the high court's order added time to the statute of limitations for all civil cases, not just those which had filing deadlines within the 3½-month tolling period.
Shaw's attorney Kristyn Dery Kaupas of Kiernan Trebach LLP argued that statutes of limitations should be strictly interpreted as a deadline for filing a case. If a case's deadline falls outside a tolling period, it shouldn't get an extension, she said.
Kaupas ran into resistance from the court. "What is the plain and ordinary meaning of 'tolled'?" Justice Dalila Wendlandt asked her twice.
When Kaupas offered a definition focusing on the extension of a certain deadline, Justice Wendlandt pressed her for cases that show that tolling only applied to cases whose statute of limitations run out within the tolling period. Kaupas couldn't offer any cases.
Justice Wendlandt later responded that she defined a statute of limitations not as a deadline date but as a period during which a claim could be filed.
Justice David Lowy asked Kaupas if it was problematic for her argument that elsewhere in the COVID-19 orders it specifically mentions the expiration of deadlines but doesn't when it refers to statutes of limitations.
"We can't just assume we decided to write it in two sections, or three sections, and not another," Justice Lowy said.
Melendez's attorney Michael Caplette told the panel that the case comes down to what "all" means in the orders' repeated use of the phrase "all civil cases."
Shaw's Supermarkets Inc. is represented by Kristyn Dery Kaupas of Kiernan Trebach LLP.
Melendez is represented by Michael Caplette.
The case is Shaw's Supermarket Inc. v. Melendez, case number SJC-13054, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Brian Baresch.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
