No. 18-566

Heriberto Menendez v. Marshall Garber

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-rights commerce-clause constitutional-burden due-process interstate-commerce judicial-jurisdiction limitations long-arm-statute non-resident-tolling statute-of-limitations tolling
Key Terms:
Patent
Latest Conference: 2019-02-22 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a state statute that tolls limitations while the defendant is absent from the state imposes constitutionally impermissible burdens on interstate commerce when applied to a resident who permanently departs the state after the events giving rise to suit, yet remains amenable to service under the state's long-arm statute

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED For over a century, Ohio has maintained a statute, like others in all 50 states, that tolls limitations when the defendant is “out of” or “departs from” the state. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.15. In Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (1988), the Court held § 2305.15 imposes “impermissible burden on commerce,” id. at 892, when applied to non-residents. This was because of the unique disability it foisted on non-residents: As they are always “absent from the state,” they remain subject to perpetual liability. And the Court concluded that this non-resident burden was not offset by any legitimate benefit to plaintiffs, given the ease of using longarm statutes to sue non-residents in the postInternational Shoe world. Id. at 889-890. Yet there is a deep, acknowledged split among U.S. courts over the proper application of such out-of-state tolling statutes to residents who permanently leave the state, and thus become non-residents, after the events underlying the suit—thereby incurring equally perpetual liability. One circuit and six state supreme courts have held these statutes impose impermissible burdens on interstate commerce when applied in these circumstances, or have interpreted statutes narrowly to avoid that result. The Sixth Circuit, by contrast, held that these statutes impose no cognizable burden on interstate commerce in these circumstances. The question presented is: Whether a state statute that tolls limitations while the defendant is absent from the state imposes constitutionally impermissible burdens on interstate commerce when applied to a resident who permanently departs the state after the events giving rise to suit, yet remains amenable to service under the state’s long-arm statute.

Docket Entries

2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-28
Reply of petitioner Heriberto Menendez, M.D. filed.
2019-01-14
Brief of respondent Marshall Garber in opposition filed.
2018-12-13
Response Requested. (Due January 14, 2019)
2018-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 30, 2018)
2018-08-16
Application (18A176) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 29, 2018.
2018-08-14
Application (18A176) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 30, 2018 to October 29, 2018, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Heriberto Menendez, M.D.
Joseph Carl CecereCecere, PC, Petitioner
Joseph Carl CecereCecere, PC, Petitioner
Marshall Garber
Jacob James BeausayBeausay Law Firm, Respondent
Jacob James BeausayBeausay Law Firm, Respondent