Maldonado v. Leeds

4 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. East Orange Community Charter School

    Civil Action No. 07-CV-3227 (DMC) (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    In New Jersey, such a claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations period. N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-2; see Maldonado v. Leeds, 374 N.J. Super. 523 (App. Div. 2005). Nevertheless, under the "discovery rule," a court may in its discretion excuse a plaintiff's failure to file suit within the two-year period.

  2. J.H. Grp., LLC v. Royal Rolling Chairs, LLC

    Civil Action No. 11-1595 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    See Freeman v. State, 788 A.2d 867, 874 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002). So, too, are claims alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Maldonado v. Leeds, 865 A.2d 741, 745 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2), and claims alleging negligence such as negligent hiring or supervision, Lutzky v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 09-cv-3886 (JAP), 2009 WL 3584330, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2009) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2(a)).

  3. Brodie v. Gloucester Twp.

    Civil Action No. 11-1914 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2012)   Cited 5 times

    See Freeman v. State, 788 A.2d 867, 874 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002). So, too, are claims alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Maldonado v. Leeds, 865 A.2d 741, 745 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2), and claims alleging negligence such as negligent hiring or supervision, Lutzky v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 09-cv-3886 (JAP), 2009 WL 3584330, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2009) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2(a)).

  4. Thomas v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-3358 (NLH) (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2009)   Cited 13 times
    In Thomas v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., No. 04-3358, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21762, at *31-32 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2009), the plaintiffs provided testimony regarding the absence of, and the need for, a policy regarding the treatment of hepatitis.

    Plaintiff also argues that Thomas's claims were tolled under New Jersey's "discovery rule." Under New Jersey law, tolling the statute of limitations under the discovery rule "may be applicable when `injured parties reasonably are unaware that they have been injured, or, although aware of an injury, do not know that the injury is attributable to the fault of another.'"Maldonado v. Leeds, 865 A.2d 741 (N.J.Super. App. Div. 2005);see also Baird v. Am. Med. Optics, 713 A.2d 1019 (N.J. 1998);Savage v. Old Bridge-Sayreville Medical Group, P.A., 633 A.2d 514, 518 (N.J. 1993) (holding that knowledge of fault for purposes of the discovery rule requires "only the awareness of facts that would alert a reasonable person exercising ordinary diligence that a third party's conduct may have caused or contributed to the cause of the injury and that conduct itself might possibly have been unreasonable or lacking in due care"). "The discovery rule is essentially a rule of equity."