Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for federal securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,816 General Builders Supply Company v. River Hill Coal Venture · filed 1986-07-03

In this case the three year period set by Mass. Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A, applies to such securities fraud actions.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for Rule 10b-5 actions.

Kilmartin v. H.C. Wainwright & Co. · filed 1986-06-19

As stated above, the amended complaint relates back in time to the date of the original complaint, which was filed within the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. c. 260, § 2A, applicable to Rule 10b-5 actions.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period does not govern federal securities-fraud claims when the more analogous Massachusetts Blue Sky Law provides a two-year period.

Gaudette v. Panos · filed 1986-09-24

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that the three year limitations period for personal tort suits provided by Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A governs securities fraud actions. ... For the following reasons, I now also rule that the two year period provided in § 410(e) is the applicable period.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period does not apply to a buyer’s claim against a seller for nonconforming goods when the claim is contractual rather than tortious.

Dorothy Ann Wilson, Etc. v. Hammer Holdings, Inc., Dorothy Ann Wilson v. Hammer Holdings, Inc. · filed 1988-06-20

Tort actions generally are governed by the statute of limitations in Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A, which provides that causes of action based on tort must be filed within three years after they accrue. ... At this time, however, the Wilsons’ action falls under the statute of limitations applicable to sales contracts, section 2-725.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort claims, including fraud, conversion, and negligence.

Fleming v. Bank of Boston Corp. · filed 1989-07-18

All of the non-statutory claims against the Bank of Boston and Lind-Waldock were based on tort theories, such as fraud, conversion and negligence. Accordingly, these tort claims are governed by Massachusetts’ three year statute of limitations. Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A gives a shareholder three years from notice of exclusion from a corporate opportunity to bring a tort claim arising from that exclusion.

Houle v. Low · filed 1990-07-05

The plaintiff’s claims are governed by G. L. c. 260, § 2A (1988 ed.), which contains a three-year limitation. ... The plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on February 6 or 7, 1984, when he was informed of the vote not to invite him to participate.

Section 2A’s three-year period applies to negligence claims but does not cover a contract claim for insurance benefits arising from a personal injury.

Walsh v. Maryland Bank, N.A. · filed 1992-11-10

The breach-of-contract, claim implicates § 2, not § 2A. ... Section 2A applies here, and it has a three-year limitations period.

Section 2A’s tort limitations period governs a corporate freeze-out claim absent an express agreement; ongoing injury does not make the claim a continuing tort.

Kirley v. Kirley · filed 1988-04-20

Thus, although the line between the two types of claims for these purposes is not sharp, we think a corporate “freeze-out” claim has more of the characteristics of a tort claim-than of a contract claim. ... The plaintiff may have suffered ongoing injuries following the actions of which he complained; that circumstance, however, does not transform the alleged wrongdoing into a continuing tort.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period does not apply to an insured’s claim under an uninsured motorist policy because the insurer’s liability rests on its promise to indemnify, not on conduct causing personal injury.

Royal-Globe Insurance v. Craven · filed 1992-01-14

The flaw in this argument is that the present action does not fall within the scope of c. 260, § 2A. ... Craven’s injuries, however, did not result from Royal-Globe’s conduct, and she could not sue her insurer in tort. The basis of Royal-Globe’s liability is not its actions resulting in personal injury but, rather, its contractual promise to indemnify against such injury.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period applies to State Ethics Commission proceedings for breach of official duty under the conflict of interest law.

Zora v. State Ethics Commission · filed 1993-06-24

It is more than obvious that the essence of adjudicatory proceedings brought under § 17 (c) is breach of official duty. Our holding in Nantucket directly controls the issue of the statute of limitations in this case. Accordingly, since the commission commenced proceedings within the three-year period set forth in G. L. c. 260, § 2A, there is no merit to the plaintiffs’ claim that these proceedings are time-barred.

Section 2A gives claims for diversion of corporate assets a three-year limitations period; in a shareholder derivative action, the period begins when shareholders or independent directors able to remedy the wrong learn of it.

Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. · filed 1993-10-29

Diversion of corporate assets is a tort with a three-year statute of limitations. G.L.c. 260, §2A; ... The statute in a shareholder derivative action does not begin to run until the shareholders or independent directors, those who had power to remedy the situation, knew of the wrongful activity.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period applies to a breach of contract claim when the alleged losses result from personal injuries, including emotional distress and harm to reputation.

Pagliuca v. City of Boston · filed 1994-01-24

A fair reading of the complaint suggests that all of these losses resulted from the emotional distress and loss of reputation allegedly inflicted on Pagliuca by the various defendants. These are personal injuries within the meaning of G. L. c. 260, § 2A, and the three-year tort limitations period applies.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period does not govern claims grounded in an alleged breach of an express employment contract; the six-year contract period applies.

TenPas v. Boger · filed 1994-05-04

The physicians and LEA nevertheless argue that the court should apply to Counts I and II the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims. G.L.c. 260, §2A. ... Here, TenPas and the physicians had an express Employment Agreement that TenPas claims was breached when the physicians barred him from the Concord facility. An alleged breach of that contract lies at the heart of Counts I and II. Accordingly, the six-year statute of limitations applies and the action was commenced in timely fashion.

Section 2A's three-year tort limitations period does not apply when the defendants' obligations arise from an implied employment contract.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gladstone · filed 1995-07-18

M.G.L. c. 260 § 2A provides a three year limitations period of tort actions. ... Because I find that the defendants' obligations to Home Federal derive from an implied employment contract, i.e. the longer limitations period, I need not address these arguments.

Section 2A’s three-year limit for tort actions does not govern a claim based on duties imposed by a written agreement beyond the duty to exercise due care.

Kravetz v. United States Trust Co. · filed 1996-09-07

Having prepared and obtained written agreements under which the Kravetzes gave up the right to recover for mere negligence that they would otherwise have had in a tort action, it is inappropriate—and in any event unavailing— for defendants to contend that they should nevertheless get the benefit of the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions.

Section 2A's three-year limitations period does not govern Tort Claims Act claims against the Commonwealth that accrue after that Act's enactment; section 3A governs those claims.

Mohr v. Commonwealth · filed 1995-08-14

The Commonwealth asserts that the three year statute of limitations articulated in G. L. c. 260, § 2A (1994 ed.), governs this case. Apparently the Commonwealth applies that provision because it assumes that the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued in 1976, before G. L. c. 258 (Massachusetts Tort Claims Act) was enacted. However, as we note in this opinion, the jury found that the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued in February, 1984. Hence, we believe that the applicable statutory provision is G. L. c. 260, § 3A, which governs claims brought against the Commonwealth under G. L. c. 258. This provision, like G. L. c. 260, § 2A, requires that claims be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues.

Section 2A’s three-year period does not apply when the gist of an alleged fraud claim is a failure to perform a promise; the contract limitations period applies.

DiBiase v. DiBiase · filed 1995-08-25

While it may be that a three-year statute of limitations applies as this is an action in fraud, G.L.c. 260, §2A, where the essence of the claim is that defendant failed to do as he promised, the “gist of the action” is contractual, and the contract period of limitations applies.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period applies to claims whose gist is professional negligence, regardless of whether they are labeled tort or contract claims.

Light v. Roney · filed 1995-08-30

The “gist,” therefore, of the plaintiffs’ tort and contract claims is essentially professional malpractice or professional negligence, which carries a three-year statute of limitations. G.L.c. 260, §2A; see also, G.L.c. 260, §4. ... The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in January 1995, more that three years later, and their tort and contract claims are therefore time-barred.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for a statutory invasion-of-privacy claim because that claim most resembles a tort.

Finney v. Madico, Inc. · filed 1997-01-16

The parties agree that the limitations period for bringing an action under § IB is three years, as provided in G. L. c. 260, § 2A, pertaining to actions of tort, which the statutory cause of action created by G. L. c. 214, § IB, most resembles. ... Laches is not a bar to the assertion of a statute of limitations defense. ... The invasion of privacy count is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 2A gives Massachusetts tort claims a three-year limitations period that begins when the injury occurs or becomes known to the plaintiff.

Deisenroth v. Numonics Corp. · filed 1998-02-27

Massachusetts tort actions are governed by a three-year statute of limitations. See G.L. c. 260, § 2A. ... Since Deisenroth knew of the recapitalization which resulted in his injury on April 13, 1992, (Comply 44), the statutory period began then. As such, the statutes of limitations for the 93A claim and the tort claims have expired because Deisenroth did not file his claim until May 23, 1997, more than five years after the accrual of the action.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort claims, including misrepresentation.

1274 Massachusetts Avenue Corp. v. 1280 Massachusetts Avenue Ltd. Partnership · filed 1998-12-22

A tort claim based on misrepresentation is time-barred. ... Under G.L.c. 260, §2A, actions sounding in tort are subject to a three year statute of limitations. ... Therefore, the applicable statute of limitations for a tort will not be tolled by virtue of any allegations of fraud. As a result, summary judgment as to count III is allowed.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years to bring a tort claim, measured from when the plaintiff receives notice of injury caused by the defendant’s conduct.

Mitchell v. New England Home for Little Wanderers, Inc. · filed 1999-06-15

The plaintiff received notice of her injury, in this case, termination, on October 5, 1995. She filed the action on September 28, 1998, within the statutory three year period as to all individual defendants.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period that generally begins when the plaintiff is injured.

Aiello v. Aiello · filed 2000-01-19

“[I]t is a well-settled rule that causes of action in tort generally accrue under G.L.c. 260, §2A, at the time the plaintiff is injured.” ... The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED to the extent that the plaintiff seeks reimbursement of the $40,000 withheld from his earned bonus in December 1994 or airy other reimbursement of monies withheld from his earned bonus prior to June 25, 1995, because such causes of action are barred by the three-year statute of limitations governing tort claims.

Section 2A imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for tortious conversion of property.

Elms v. Osgood · filed 1998-05-13

Tortious conversion of property is governed by G.L.c. 260, §2A, which imposes a three year statute of limitations.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for fraud claims.

Gordon & Co. v. Ross · filed 1999-09-03

The New York statute of limitations for fraud is six years, C.P.L.R. § 213[8] (McKinney 1990), while the Massachusetts statute of limitations is three years, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A (West 1998).

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period for conversion does not apply when a special statute supplies the governing limitations period.

Grande v. PFL Life Insurance · filed 2000-09-27

Grande contends that she is entitled to at least a trial on the merits on her claim for conversion because that claim is governed by the longer three year statute of limitations set forth in G.L.c. 260, §2A. ... The two year limitations period of G.L.c. 175, §181 is a “special provision” which governs this action for tbe reasons outlined above, and thus the three year conversion statute of limitations does not apply.

Section 2A gives a three-year limitations period for wrongful discharge claims based on public policy, running from when the employee knew or reasonably should have known the facts suggesting an unlawful discharge.

O'Kelly v. BASF Magnetics Corp. · filed 2001-04-13

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has done so, however, with respect to a closely analogous claim, and applied the three-year limitations period for tort claims under G.L.c. 260, §2A. ... The reasoning of that decision is persuasive, and fully applicable here. ... Application of the three-year limitation depends on when O’Kelly knew or reasonably should have known the facts giving rise to his cause of action.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitation period that generally begins when the plaintiff is injured.

Rathore v. Kelly · filed 2002-09-10

However, in Massachusetts, under the three-year statute of limitations, causes of actions in tort generally accrue at the time the plaintiff is injured. ... The 1993 comment could not place Rathore on notice that the tort of intentional interference with a contract would be committed against her in the future. ... Therefore, Rathore’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 2A requires fraud claims to be filed within three years after they accrue.

MacCleave v. Merchant · filed 2002-10-01

For purposes of the statute of limitations, December 31, 1997 is the date when the plaintiffs causes of actions as to counts I and II accrued. The plaintiff was obligated to file such claims on or before December 31, 2000. Having failed to do so, this Court finds Counts I and II are barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations provided by G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A gives conversion claims a three-year limitations period.

Williamson v. DT Management, Inc. · filed 2004-03-10

Conversion, however, is a tort and therefore carries with it a three-year statute of limitations pursuant to G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A generally gives plaintiffs three years to bring a tort claim; when notice of the injury is disputed, a jury may decide when the period began.

Lawson v. Affirmative Equities Co., LP · filed 2004-10-27

Tort claims are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations, while Consumer Protection Act claims must be brought within four years. G.L. c. 260, §§ 2A and 5A. ... But on this record, it is a jury, and not a court of law, that will make that determination.

Section 2A gives a common law deceit claim sounding in tort three years from accrual.

Kozikowski v. Toll Bros., Inc. · filed 2003-02-25

The statute of limitations for a deceit claim, which sounds in tort, is three years from the date of accrual. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. ... Because the Kozikowskis waited until November 2001 to file suit, at which point the statutes of bmitations governing their claims had long expired, this Court must grant Toll Brothers’ motion for summary judgment.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period excludes the day the cause of action accrues, so a suit filed on the third anniversary is timely.

Poy v. Boutselis · filed 2003-12-22

Most importantly, Boutselis ignores the strong indication of a beginning date in the "next after" language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2A as well as longstanding Massachusetts precedent excluding the date of accrual from the calculation of the limitations period. ... The district court therefore did not err in finding that Poy's anniversary date filing was timely.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years from accrual to bring a defamation action.

Abate v. Maine Antique Digest · filed 2004-01-26

The limitations period applicable to this case is three years. G.L.c. 260, §2A. That is, plaintiff has three years from the date that his cause of action “accrues” in which to bring an action.

Section 2A’s three-year period for tort actions extends to the next business day when its last day falls on a Saturday on which the court is closed.

Mahoney v. DeMatteo-Flatiron LLP · filed 2006-04-06

By simple and direct application of the two statutes read together, when the last day for commencement of an action of tort falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the action may be commenced on the next succeeding business day. ... Adding G. L. c. 220, § 6, to the mix treats any Saturday on which court is closed as a legal holiday for such purposes, rendering the plaintiff’s complaint timely.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims arising in Massachusetts.

Mangano v. Bellotti · filed 2006-07-05

Plaintiff acknowledges that the three-year statute of limitations prescribed by Mass. G. L. c. 260, § 2A governs here, and that the question of when the cause of action accrues is one of federal law. ... These events all occurred more than three years before the instant action was filed.

Section 2A requires a fraudulent-inducement claim to be brought within three years after it accrues.

Intertech Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Immunetics, Inc. · filed 2004-11-16

A claim for fraudulent inducement must be brought within three years of the accrual of such claim.

Section 2A gives a conversion claim three years from the injury or loss to be filed.

Nortek, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2006-03-15

Nortek’s claim for conversion sounds in tort, and the applicable limitations period accordingly is three years. See Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 327-328 n.6 (2001); G. L. c. 260, § 2A. ... The cause accordingly accrued in October, 2001, when Liberty liquidated the collateral and applied the proceeds to satisfy its version of the premium amounts due. Nortek’s complaint, filed in September, 2002, fell comfortably within the applicable limitations period.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period, including unjust enrichment claims based on alleged conversion rather than breach of contract.

Cambridge Literary Properties, Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.M.B.H. & Co. Kg. · filed 2006-08-08

In reaching this conclusion, this court finds that if the plaintiffs claims constitute state law causes of action, they should be construed as tort claims, as Goebel asserts, rather than contract claims, as Cambridge contends. Massachusetts tort claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations instead of the six-year limitations period applicable to contract claims.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for fraud-in-the-inducement claims.

Formato v. Protonex Technologies Corp. · filed 2006-12-20

Whether or not a claim of fraud in the inducement would fall under the contractual choice of law clause need not be decided here, because the applicable period of limitations in both Massachusetts and Delaware is three years. ... Count III is thus time-barred under either Massachusetts or Delaware law.

Section 2A gives misrepresentation claims a three-year limitations period.

Galipeault v. USRV, Inc. · filed 2006-12-20

The statute of limitations for these claims is three years, G.L.c. 260, §2A, so Count V is not time-barred.

Section 2A gives fraud and misrepresentation claims a three-year limitations period, with accrual depending on when the plaintiff knew or should have known the basis for the claims.

Bergeron Ex Rel. P. Bergeron Nominee Trust v. Ridgewood Securities Corp. · filed 2009-03-31

The plaintiffs statutory claims, including his claims under the Securities Act and Chapter 93A, are subject to a four year statute of limitations, while the limitations period for the plaintiffs fraud and misrepresentation claims is three years. ... For the reasons that follow, this court finds that there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether any of these claims accrued prior to 2003.

Section 2A’s three-year period for tort actions does not apply to a bailment claim whose essential nature is contractual.

Aimtek, Inc. v. Norton Co. · filed 2007-08-02

Norton maintains that the three-year statute of limitations for tort actions rendered Aimtek’s claim for breach of the bailment untimely. We agree with the trial judge that in these particular circumstances, the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions applied to Aimtek’s bailment claim.

Section 2A’s three-year limit for tort claims does not necessarily run from a defendant’s death when the complaint leaves open when the plaintiff discovered the injury.

Hayeck v. Fruit Sever Realty Corp. · filed 2011-07-12

While the face of the complaint shows that more than three years elapsed between George N.’s death and the filing of the complaint, the court finds that George N.’s death is not the determinative date for the purposes of G.L.c. 260, §2A as applied to Counts I-IV.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years to bring a tort claim after the plaintiff has sufficient notice of the injury and its likely cause.

Graham v. Just A Start Corp. · filed 2011-08-04

Básed on the uncontroverted evidence in the record, Graham was aware as of August 2005 that her house suffered damage due to the installation of the support beam in the basement. Her negligence claim accrued at that time. Because Graham did not file that claim until more than three years later, G.L.c. 260, §§2A and/or 2B bar the claim.

Section 2A gives tort claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation a three-year limitations period beginning when the claim accrues.

Passatempo v. McMenimen · filed 2012-01-12

We conclude that the plaintiffs’ common-law claims are timely under § 2A as to McMenimen, but not as to the other defendants. The three-year limitations period set forth in § 2A begins to run when a claim accrues.

Section 2A bars tort claims commenced more than three years after the incident giving rise to them.

Campbell v. Glodis · filed 2012-08-01

According to Michael Haiju’s deposition testimony, the incident forming the basis of his claims took place on January 24, 2007. Harju Dep. 49:7-11. As noted above, this action was commenced on February 22, 2010. Accordingly, Haiju’s tort claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for fraudulent inducement claims in Massachusetts.

Schlenger v. Fidelity Employer Services Co., LLC · filed 2011-03-31

The statute of limitations for fraudulent inducement in New York is six years, see C.P.L.R. § 213; in Massachusetts, it is three years, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A gives undue influence claims a three-year limitations period even when the claim seeks equitable relief.

Howe v. Palmer · filed 2011-10-31

A claim for undue influence sounds in tort, Brignati v. Medenwald, 315 Mass. 636, 636 (1944), and actions in tort have a statute of limitations of three years under G. L. c. 260, § 2A. This statute of limitations applies notwithstanding the fact that undue influence is an equitable claim, as statutes of limitations apply to both legal and equitable claims.

Section 2A gives a tortious interference claim a three-year limitations period.

Lyons v. Gillette · filed 2012-07-31

The limitations period on this claim is three years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. ... First, since the alleged interference occurred in 2004, this claim is time-barred.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for fraud claims.

Pilalas v. The Cadle Co · filed 2012-09-12

However, the limitations period under state law is three years for fraud claims, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and four years for chapter 93A claims, id., § 5A.

Section 2A can time-bar a commercial disparagement claim under Massachusetts law.

Advanced Technology Corp. v. Instron, Inc. · filed 2013-02-26

This court need not decide whether Massachusetts, Minnesota, or Tennessee law applies to ATC’s commercial disparagement claim against MTS. This claim is time-barred in all of these states. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A; Minn.Stat. § 541.07; Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 28-3-103, 28-3-104, 28-3-105.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period does not apply to an unjust enrichment claim whose essential nature is contractual.

Riley v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Duplication Management, Inc.) · filed 2013-11-04

Thus, either the three-year tort statute of limitations, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, or the six-year contract statute of limitations may apply depending on the nature of the claim. ... The Court concludes that the essential nature of the Trustee’s Claim under Count I is contractual, a conclusion that is consistent with the fraudulent conveyance claims set forth in Counts III through VI. ... She did not allege any type of conversion or misappropriation warranting application of the statute of limitations applicable to torts.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period governs claims for unpaid postjudgment interest arising from a statutory duty.

Mont v. Encompass Insurance · filed 2014-01-22

The court agrees with Encompass that G.L.c. 260, §2A provides the period of limitations for claims arising out of the breach of a duty derived from such a statute.

Section 2A requires a tort claim to be filed within three years after it accrues.

Chalifoux v. Chalifoux · filed 2017-07-26

The limitations period specified in section 2A commences "after the cause of action accrues." ... Because Joseph brought his suit on July 5, 2016, his complaint, at least with respect to these claims, fits within the three-year statute of limitations.

Section 2A gives wrongful foreclosure and slander of title tort claims three years, beginning when the plaintiff knew or should have known of appreciable harm.

Larace v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-02-05

Rather, the accrual date for both the tort and c. 93A claims is "when the plaintiff knew or should have known of appreciable harm resulting from" the defendants' wrongful foreclosure of their home.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for tort claims.

Brown v. Sav. Bank Life Ins. Co. of Mass. · filed 2018-07-18

Here, reading G. L. c. 260 and G. L. c. 175, § 22, in harmony, a two-year statute of limitations applies to the contract claim and any contract-based c. 93A claims arising under the policy, the four-year statute of limitations in G. L. c. 260, § 5A, applies to Michelle's tort-based consumer protection claims, and G. L. c. 260, § 2A's three-year statute of limitations is applicable to her related tort claims.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for common law tort claims, including civil conspiracy.

Schand v. City of Springfield · filed 2019-05-06

Massachusetts law establishes a three-year limitations period for filing tort claims of this sort. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for negligence claims.

Abernathy v. Dewey · filed 2016-07-07

The proposed civil rights and negligence causes of action are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See Poy v. Boutselis, 352 F.3d 479, 483 (1st Cir.2003) (§ 1983 “borrows” state limitations period for personal injury claims); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 5B (state civil rights actions); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A (negligence). Plaintiffs claims accrued on April 3, 2013, and he filed for leave to amend his complaint on June 9, 2016, two months after the expiration of the three-year period.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for negligence claims.

Abernathy v. Dewey · filed 2017-09-28

The proposed civil rights and tort-based causes of action are subject to a three-year limitations period. See Poy v. Boutselis, 352 F.3d 479, 483 (1st Cir. 2003) (a claim under § 1983 “borrows” the state limitations period for personal injury claims); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 5B (state civil rights actions); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A (negligence). Plaintiffs claims accrued on April 3, 2013, and he moved to amend his complaint on June 5, 2017, over one year after the expiration of the three-year period. ... Because plaintiff filed his original complaint within the three-year limitations period, the motion to amend is timely.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period applicable to a First Amendment claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Ventura v. Massachusetts General Hospital · filed 2019-07-25

The three-year statute of limitations prescribed by M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A or M.G.L. ch. 206, § 5B governs here.

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years to bring a fraud claim.

Harry v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. · filed 2016-10-18

Plaintiffs’ additional TILA claims have also expired because the SOL for non-rescission TILA claims is one year, Mantz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 09-cv-12010-JLT, 2011 WL 196915, at *3 (D. Mass. Jan. 19, 2011), and their fraud claim has expired because the SOL for that claim is three years. M.G.L. c. 260 § 2A.

Section 2A imposes a three-year limitations period on fraud claims.

Rick v. Profit Management Associates, Inc. · filed 2017-03-13

The claim is also barred by the statute of limitations, making any future attempt to replead this claim futile. Pennsylvania has a tyro-year statute of limitations for fraud, while Massachusetts has a three-year statute. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524(7); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for fraud claims.

Nickerson-Reti v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2018-05-17

The limitations period for fraud claims is three years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A gives fraud claims a three-year limitations period.

Bek v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage · filed 2018-09-07

Additionally, a claim of fraud based on these statements is barred by the statute of limitations. In Massachusetts, fraud claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A; Stolzoff v. Waste Sys. Int’l, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 747, 755-56 (2003). While it is unclear when exactly the allegedly fraudulent statements were made, the amended complaint’s timeline establishes that these statements were necessarily made prior to December 14, 2012.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years after accrual to bring a civil conspiracy claim.

Cruickshank v. Dixon (In re Blast Fitness Grp., LLC) · filed 2019-05-24

There is a three year statute of limitations for the tort of civil conspiracy.

Section 2A bars a tort claim brought more than three years after the accident.

Martins v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Group · filed 2023-03-13

Nor is there any possibility, at this stage, that he will be able to obtain such a judgment; more than three years have elapsed since the accident, and accordingly any tort claim he may have against Dansoko is time-barred. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort claims, including fraud claims.

Doe v. UMass - Amherst · filed 2023-11-01

Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Counts VII, VIII, and IX), breach of contract against UMass-Amherst (Count XIII), and her intentional tort claims (defamation, Count XIV; and fraud, Count XV) also have three-year limitations periods. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 9; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2A, 3A, and 4.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period, which begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury.

GATTINERI v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC., & Others. · filed 2023-12-26

The applicable limitations periods are: three years (trade secret misappropriation), G. L. c. 93, § 42E; three years (torts), G. L. c. 260, § 2A; four years (unfair and deceptive practices), G. L. c. 260, § 5A; and six years (breach of contract), G. L. c. 260, § 2.

Section 2A gives negligence claims a three-year limitations period.

Pajak v. Rohm & Haas Company · filed 2019-12-09

In Massachusetts, negligence claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See G.L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A requires negligence claims to be brought within three years of the alleged injury.

Brooks v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts · filed 2020-02-20

Claims for negligence must be brought within three years of the alleged injury. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A imposes a three-year limitations period on tort claims, including emotional distress, assault and battery, conspiracy, fraud, defamation, abuse of process, and loss of consortium claims.

DEBRA HARDING, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Child v. THOMAS B. PLANTE and GINETTE PLANTE · filed 2020-02-26

The claims are for negligent infliction of emotional of distress (Count 16), intentional infliction of emotional of distress (Count 28), assault and battery (Count 1), conspiracy (Count 22), fraud (Counts 25 and 26), defamation (Counts 23 and 24), abuse of process (Count 27), and loss of consortium (Count 30). Each of these claims sound in tort and are subject to the three year statute of limitations at G.L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for these claims, measured from when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury.

Alvarez v. Worcester · filed 2020-03-27

Thus, Plaintiff’s federal and state claims are governed by the same three-year statute of limitations. ... And because Plaintiff’s cause of action would, under these circumstances, have accrued in the fall of 2019, the Court cannot find his claims untimely as a matter of law.

Section 2A gives a civil conspiracy claim a three-year limitations period, which barred reliance on the alleged conduct in 2012.

Cruickshank v. Dixon · filed 2020-04-27

There is a three-year statute of limitations for the tort of civil conspiracy. ... To the extent the trustee relies on the presentment in April of 2012 of the allegedly fraudulent membership consent as a basis for the conspiracy claim, the statute of limitations precludes any such reliance.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which courts borrow for § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Badio v. G4s Solution USA · filed 2021-01-12

Plaintiff alleges that he was not aware of his suspended LTC until he attempted to purchase a firearm on September 21, 2018, [ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 42–43], therefore his § 1983 claim—filed just over one year later—is not barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years to bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Shepardson v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus · filed 2021-03-10

Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is time-barred by Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitation for tort claims.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 and Title IX claims brought in Massachusetts.

Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee · filed 2021-08-27

In Massachusetts, that period is generally three years. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2A (“Except as otherwise provided, actions of tort . . . shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues.”). ... Accordingly, the Court will apply a three-year limitations period to all of plaintiff’s claims.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which courts apply to § 1983 claims arising in Massachusetts.

Veal v. Commissioner of Boston Centers for Youth & Families · filed 2022-03-10

Because the statute of limitations on personal injury actions under Massachusetts law is three years, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is also three years, see Martinez-Rivera, 812 F.3d at 74–75; Connell v. Bd. of Selectmen of Town of Harwich, 215 F.3d 1311 (1st Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision).

Section 2A applies a three-year limitations period to claims sounding in tort.

CATHERINE BRAUNER & another v. DOYLE C. VALLEY, personal representative. · filed 2022-05-06

With the exception of the c. 93A claim, which is subject to the four-year limitations period of G. L. c. 260, § 5A, the remaining claims sounded in tort and are subject to the three-year limitations period of G. L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including section 1983 actions brought in Massachusetts.

Silva v. Bennett · filed 2022-05-10

Thus, in Massachusetts, a three-year limitations period applies to section 1983 actions.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for conversion and replevin actions, including bailment claims brought as those actions; transferring the property does not restart the period.

Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris · filed 2022-05-25

And to the extent that Gibson has failed to bring a timely claim, the statute does not start to run anew because of the transfer. ... The statute of limitations for both conversion and replevin actions is three years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period that applies to § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Talley v. Tyer · filed 2023-01-03

The applicable statute of limitations is M.G.L. c. 260 § 2A, which provides for a three-year statute of limitations. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s claims appear to have arisen more than three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and are therefore time-barred.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including emotional distress claims.

J.S.H v. Newton · filed 2023-02-01

Whether this Court refers to the personal injury statute, M. G. L. c. 260, § 2A, or the state anti- discrimination statute, M. G. L. c. 151B § 9,7 the term is three years. The emotional distress claims are governed by the personal injury statute.

Section 2A requires invasion-of-privacy and civil-conspiracy claims to be filed within three years after they accrue.

Doane v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. · filed 2023-03-10

Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, tort claims—including for invasion of privacy and conspiracy—“shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues.” ... Accordingly, the claims had accrued by June 19, 2018. Even allowing for tolling under the SJC’s order, the limitations period expired on October 3, 2021, before the parties entered into a tolling agreement in November 2021.

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years after accrual to bring tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

Kaiser v. Kirchick · filed 2023-03-15

Actions in tort—including IIED and civil conspiracy—are also governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 260, § 2A. ... Because a jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiffs’ claims did not accrue until April 2018, summary judgment on the basis of statute of limitations will be denied as to Counts 1, 3, and 4.

Section 2A requires tort actions to be filed within three years after the cause of action accrues; the deadline falls on the third anniversary of accrual.

Brown v. Vero Healthcare. · filed 2023-05-25

Under any statute applicable here, the plaintiff's action was required to be brought "within" three years. G. L. c. 229, § 2 (wrongful death actions must be brought "within three years from the date when the deceased's executor or administrator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the factual basis for a cause of action"); G. L. c. 260, § 2A (tort claims "shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues"); G. L. c. 260, § 4 (medical malpractice actions "shall be commenced ... only within three years after the cause of action accrues").

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years to bring a tort action, measured here from when they knew of the alleged harm.

CAROLYN A. VERDURA, Trustee, & Another v. NANCY DELGROSSO & Another. · filed 2023-08-23

Under any view of the evidence and giving the plaintiffs the benefit of the discovery rule to set the accrual date as December 2013, whether the plaintiffs' claim is considered a tort, a breach of contract, or a breach of partnership or fiduciary duty created by the 1997 agreement, the statute of limitations lapsed before this action was commenced. ... See G. L. c. 260, § 2A (three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions); Barber v. Fox, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 525, 527, 529 (1994) (contract statute of limitations six years and applies to breach of fiduciary duty claim arising from failed promises).

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort actions.

JANE DOE v. CHRISTINA STANKEVICH & Another. · filed 2023-10-18

The remaining allegations attributed to this defendant are barred by applicable statutes of limitations or otherwise fail to state a plausible claim entitling her to relief. See G. L. c. 260, § 2A (three-year statute of limitations applies to actions of tort).

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years from when they know or have reason to know of an injury to bring personal injury claims, including false imprisonment, negligence, and emotional distress claims.

Verrier v. Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth, Inc. · filed 2023-12-11

Finally, plaintiff alleges several state tort claims including (1) false imprisonment, (2) negligence and (3) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. Those are all personal injury claims subject to the three-year Massachusetts statute of limitations. M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A. ... Here too, the complaint was filed more than three years after the plaintiff knew of his alleged injuries. Therefore, the motions to dismiss Counts V, VI, IX and X will be allowed.

Section 2A gives intentional tort claims, including defamation and fraud, a three-year limitations period.

Doe v. UMass - Amherst · filed 2023-12-21

Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Counts VII, VIII, and IX), breach of contract against UMass-Amherst (Count XIII), and her intentional tort claims (defamation, Count XIV; and fraud, Count XV) also have three-year limitations periods. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 9; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2A, 3A, and 4. ... Accordingly, these claims must have accrued after April 22, 2016, in order to be timely, unless a tolling doctrine applies.

Section 2A generally requires tort actions to be filed within three years after the cause of action accrues.

Doe v. City of Boston · filed 2024-03-29

Accordingly, the appropriate limitations period for all of the claims at issue is three years from the date of accrual under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §§ 2A and 5B.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period after accrual; courts also use that period for § 1983 claims filed in Massachusetts.

Tibbs v. Gender Dysphoria Group · filed 2024-04-24

Under Massachusetts law, the general limitations period for tort claims is three years after the date of accrual. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A (“Except as otherwise provided, actions of tort . . . shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues.”). ... Therefore, in Massachusetts, Section 1983 claims are subject to a three-year limitations period. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. ... Therefore, the claims against defendants Andrade, Hanger, and Perkins are untimely and will be dismissed.

Section 2A gives tort claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, a three-year limitations period.

Connell v. PNC Bank · filed 2024-07-01

Tort claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A; Andersen v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 2016 WL 3093375, at *4 (D. Mass. June 1, 2016). ... Connell’s cause of action accrued, at the latest, when he signed the Modification Agreement on July 16, 2010. Therefore, the statute of limitations expired, at the latest, on July 16, 2013.

Section 2A requires claims for tortious interference with contractual or advantageous business relations to be brought within three years after they accrue.

Anywherecommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. · filed 2023-03-29

Actions for tortious interference with contractual or advantageous business relations must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues. Mass. G.L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A gives tortious interference claims a three-year limitations period.

John W. Baldwin, Jr., Robert N. Baldwin, James R. Baldwin, and John E. Baldwin v. Thomas P. Connor, Jr., Maria H. Connor · filed 2024-04-10

This claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See G.L. c. 260, § 2A. The summary judgment record makes clear that the Connors knew in 2012 that the Baldwins were taking steps that (allegedly) interfered with a potential sale to Inteplast Group, and knew in 2014 that the Baldwins took other steps that (allegedly) interfered with a potential sale to Allegiance Capital Corporation. Though the Connors spend substantial effort lining up evidence of this purported interference well over three years before this action was filed, that part of their tortious interference claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 2A gives claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress a three-year limitations period.

Rae v. Woburn Public Schools · filed 2023-05-05

The statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress is three years. ... The Court therefore looks to allegations of improper or illegal behavior that occurred on or after November 17, 2019, the same timeframe applicable to Plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

Section 2A's three-year tort limitations period applies to a breach-of-bailment claim when the claim's essential nature is tortious; a contractual claim may instead receive the six-year period.

Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris · filed 2023-12-04

The parties do not dispute that Gibson Foundation's breach-of-bailment claim is timely if the six-year limitations ... period that Massachusetts sets forth for certain contract claims applies, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2, or that the claim is time-barred if, as the District Court held, the three-year limitations period that Massachusetts sets forth for tort claims applies instead, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. ... But we see no basis for engaging in a different inquiry to determine the applicable limitations period for this breach-of-bailment claim than the one in which the MAC engaged in Aimtek. ... Reviewing de novo, Pleasantdale Condos., 37 F.4th at 732-33, we conclude, for the reasons that we will next explain, that a reasonable juror could so find.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period.

Branch v. Antonio R. Harris. · filed 2025-10-16

The statute of limitations for tort claims is three years. See G. L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years to bring tort claims; the discovery rule delays accrual until they know or reasonably should know of the harm and its cause.

LEAH BARROWS v. NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF ACUPUNCTURE & Others. · filed 2026-02-09

Tort claims "are governed by the three-year limitation period provided by G. L. c. 260, § 2A." ... There is no genuine dispute that the alleged harm to the plaintiff occurred -- and that the plaintiff knew of that harm -- any later than June 2, 2016. The filing of her complaint was untimely.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for tort claims.

Aisenberg v. Hallmark Marketing Corp. · filed 2004-03-31

Moreover, this Court chooses to apply Missouri law to Counts III, IV and V because Massachusetts law would bar their consideration under the three-year limitation period on tort claims. See M.G.L.c. 260, § 2A; Prescott v. Morton Intern., Inc., 769 F.Supp. 404, 406 (D.Mass.1990). That is so because Aisenberg became aware that Hallmark had stopped paying him commissions in 1997 and the limitations period on his tort actions under Massachusetts law therefore expired in 2000.

Section 2A's general three-year period for personal injury actions does not govern injuries covered by the MBTA's two-year limitations period.

Chickel v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority · filed 2001-11-30

Does the two-year statute of limitations ... imposed by G.L.c. 161A, §38 apply so as to bar the action, or rather does the more general three-year statute of limitations set forth in G.L.c. 260, §2A apply so that the action was not time-barred. ... Plaintiff who was injured as a result of a fall caused by unnatural accumulation of water on a platform and owned and/or maintained by the MBTA is clearly encompassed within the provisions of this statute.

Section 2A provides a three year limitations period, but the court declined to borrow it for Rule 10b-5 claims because it found the Massachusetts Blue Sky law more analogous.

In Re Atlantic Financial Management, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 1988-12-08

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has consistently held that in Massachusetts, the statute of limitations which governs claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is to be derived from M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A, which currently provides for a three year limitations period. ... The basic rule of this circuit is still to borrow the most analogous state statute of limitations. ... Accordingly, my earlier ruling stands.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort actions that also governs Section 1983 claims in Massachusetts.

Dumais v. Westport Community Schools · filed 1993-10-28

The general orresid-ualpersonalinjurystatuteoflimitationsinMassachu-setts is G.L.c. 260, §2A. The three-year limitations period contained in that statute permits Dumais to maintain her civil rights claim.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for § 10(b) securities fraud claims in Massachusetts, running from inquiry notice.

In Re Integrated Resources Real Estate Ltd. Partnerships Securities Litigation · filed 1994-01-04

The First Circuit has held that the three year period set by Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 260 § 2A applies to securities fraud actions. ... Thus, Walker’s § 10(b) claim is time-barred under Massachusetts law.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period applies to fraudulent concealment and G.L.c. 93A, §11 claims.

Noble v. Cournoyer · filed 1996-08-13

The three-year statute of limitations applicable to torts, G.L.c. 260, §2A, applies to both plaintiffs claim of fraudulent concealment and violation of G.L.c. 93A, §11. Plaintiff learned of his claim against Maillet in July 1990, yet did not file this action until well over four years later. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against Maillet must be dismissed.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period does not govern Jones Act and general maritime claims.

McKinney v. Waterman Steamship Corp. · filed 1990-05-31

The parties seem to assume that the three-year limitations period provided by M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A (tort actions) applies to this diversity case. I disagree that Massachusetts limitations law governs this action, whose three counts rest on the Jones Act and general maritime law.

Section 2A’s three-year limit for contract actions to recover for personal injuries supplies an analogous period for assessing laches on a maintenance and cure claim arising from an injury.

McKinney v. Waterman Steamship Corporation · filed 1991-01-30

Massachusetts law provides that a three-year limitations period applies to “actions of contract to recover for personal injuries.” Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 2A. ... The present maintenance and cure claim, arising here out of a personal injury, fits within the Massachusetts limitations provision for a contract action to recover for personal injuries.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for tort actions and serves as the analogous Massachusetts limitations statute for Lanham Act trademark infringement claims.

Kusek v. Family Circle, Inc. · filed 1995-07-17

In the case of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the analogous Massachusetts state statute is M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A, which provides for a statute of limitations of three years for tort, contract to recover personal injury, and replevin actions.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period applies to constitutional and §1983 claims that sound in tort.

DiBiase v. Commissioner of Insurance · filed 1997-10-16

Therefore, for all DiBiase’s claims, the applicable statute of limitations, is G.L.c. 260, §2A, or three years from the time the action accrued.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period for personal injury actions governs §1983 claims.

O'Brien v. Kobrin · filed 2000-04-11

A claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 is governed by the three year statute of limitations for personal injury actions set forth at G.L.c. 260, §2A. ... This Court allowed the motion to amend on May 18, 1999, and pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(c), the amendment related back to the original pleading, which was timely filed.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for a section 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.

Strahan v. Frazier · filed 2001-08-01

A claim under section 1983 for a violation of the Fourth Amendment has a three-year statute of limitations. Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39-40 (1st Cir.1991) (per curiam); see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. As the incident occurred, at the latest, in 1992 or 1993, and Strahan did not file this suit until 2000, his claim is untimely.

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions that applies to § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Hamilton v. Dineen · filed 2001-08-29

As a result, the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to this case.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period applies to ERISA § 510 interference claims.

Edes v. Verizon Communications, Inc. · filed 2003-07-25

Second, plaintiffs’ § 510 claim is time-barred. The Massachusetts three-year limitations period for torts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, applies to actions under ERISA § 510.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period begins after the cause of action accrues.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES NETWORK, INC. v. Brown & Brown, Inc. · filed 2010-11-18

The three year limitations period in section 2A and the four year limitations period in section 5A both commence “after the cause of action accrues.”

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period for personal injury torts applies to a § 1983 claim.

Grady v. Lariviere · filed 2011-02-17

a federal claim that was properly filed within the three-year statute of limitations for torts resulting in personal injury, G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years to bring a fraud claim, beginning when the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts supporting it.

Fortucci v. RBS Citizens, N.A. · filed 2011-05-16

The statute of limitations for fraud in Massachusetts is three years. M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A. The statute begins to run when the injured party knew or should have known the factual basis for the cause of action. ... Because Fortucci knew in October, 2007, that she had been terminated, she was required to file her claim before October, 2010, the end of the three-year period. Because Fortucci did not bring suit until December 6, 2010, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and will, therefore, be dismissed.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for Bivens claims brought in Massachusetts.

Donahue v. Connolly · filed 2012-09-13

Bivens claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations in Massachusetts.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Tomaselli v. Beaulieu · filed 2013-08-30

Therefore, in Massachusetts, claims brought under § 1983 are subject to a three year statute of limitations. Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir.2001) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A).

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period for tort and personal injury claims that applies to § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Rice v. Resendes · filed 2019-09-26

Thus, Rice’s § 1983 claims borrow the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations for tort and personal injury claims. See M.G.L. ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A supplies the three-year limitations period for Bivens claims in Massachusetts.

Scott v. Wild · filed 2020-02-18

Bivens claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations in Massachusetts. ... The claims here accrued in 2014, well more than three years before the complaint was filed in November 2019. The claims are therefore time-barred. ... In Massachusetts, that statute is Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort claims in Massachusetts.

Fincher v. Town of Brookline · filed 2022-02-18

The statute of limitations for tort claims under Massachusetts law is three years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A’s three-year limitations period for tort actions applies to Section 1983 claims filed in Massachusetts.

Dubois v. Alves · filed 2023-04-24

G.L. ch. 260, § 2A (“Except as otherwise provided, actions of tort . . . shall be commenced only within three years next after the cause of action accrues.”). ... As this action was not filed until July 22, 2022, these claims are untimely.

Section 2A supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

Wright v. Moniz · filed 2024-06-17

The relevant statute of limitations is three years.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to Section 1983 claims brought in Massachusetts.

White McLaughlin v. The Cambridge School Committee · filed 2024-10-07

Massachusetts prescribes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and therefore that statute of limitations applies. Id. (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A).

Section 2A provides a three-year limitations period that the court applied to Street’s civil rights claims.

Street v. George Vose, Etc. · filed 1991-06-19

As Street’s transfer, detention in segregation, and mail losses were all completed by March 1982, all his claims accrued by then, and the limitation period expired in March 1985. Street filed his complaint in July 1990, more than five years after the statute of limitations expired.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for tort claims.

Universal Trading & Investment Co. v. Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Interests in International & Foreign Courts · filed 2012-09-19

Here, regardless of whether the tort statute of limitations of three years, see G.L. c. 260, § 2A, or the contract statute of limitations of six years, see G.L. c. 260, § 2, applies, the time for filing has passed and this claim is time-barred.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period governs a watered-stock claim based on breaches of fiduciary duty.

Crowley v. Polar Corp. · filed 1994-10-17

Accordingly, Denis’s “watered” stock claim is controlled by the three-year tort statute of limitations of G.L.c. 260, §2A,... and the question becomes whether the August 30, 1993 institution of proceedings occurred more than three years after the statutory period commenced running.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period applies to a breach of fiduciary duty imposed by law.

Sunderland v. Andover Retirement Board · filed 1997-04-24

Therefore plaintiffs claim of breach of fiduciary duly sounds in tort and is governed by the tort statute of limitations. Since plaintiffs cause of action accrued no later than March, 1993, and plaintiff filed this action more than three years later, in November, 1996, plaintiffs action is time barred. G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A sets a three-year limitations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims sounding in tort.

Horton v. Benjamin · filed 1997-11-26

Horton’s claims are governed by the three-year limitation contained in G.L.c. 260, §2A.

Section 2A gives three years to sue for breach of fiduciary duty, and the claim does not accrue until the beneficiary has actual knowledge of the breach.

Lattuca v. Robsham · filed 2004-07-26

Breach of fiduciary duty is a cause of action in tort that is governed by G. L. c. 260, § 2A, which provides for a three-year period of limitation. ... Therefore, contrary to the defendants’ argument that Lattuca “could have” conducted a title search of lot four and “could have” investigated the trust’s finances earlier, a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty does not accrue until the beneficiary has actual knowledge of the fiduciary’s breach. Constructive knowledge is insufficient.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year filing period, but a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not accrue until the beneficiary actually learns of the breach.

Doe v. Harbor Schools, Inc. · filed 2005-04-28

Each claim, including the claim of negligent breach of fiduciary duty, sounds in tort, and is therefore subject to the three-year statute of limitations found in G. L. c. 260, § 2A. ... Instead, the limitations period begins when the beneficiary actually learns that the fiduciary has breached the trust.

Section 2A’s three-year period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim begins when the beneficiary actually knows the fiduciary’s conduct injured her, even if she does not yet know she has a legal claim.

Doe v. Harbor Schools, Inc. · filed 2006-03-14

Second, we hold that the critical event that starts the limitations period running on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is when the plaintiff first becomes aware of facts giving rise to her injury by the defendant, and not, as the Appeals Court stated, when the plaintiff first understands the causal connection between her injuries and a legally cognizable claim against the defendant.

Section 2A’s limitations period for a fiduciary breach claim begins when the plaintiff actually knows that the injury was caused by the fiduciary’s breach of trust.

Laconte v. Devlin · filed 2006-10-13

As to a claim for either intentional or negligent breach of fiduciary relationship, the discovery rule does not apply an objective test, rather the statute of limitation commences when the plaintiff has actual knowledge of the causal connection between claimed injuries and the fiduciary’s repudiation of trust.

Section 2A gives a beneficiary three years to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim after the beneficiary knows or should recognize the injury.

Kury v. Calechman · filed 2007-02-14

Given Kury’s understanding of the Trust and his understanding that Ban was to provide for him upon her death, the triggering event for the statute of limitations is the 1988 meeting between Kury and Calechman. That is the point in time in which Calechman repudiated the Trust and Kury should have realized he was being harmed by Calechman’s actions. Once Kury was told by Calech-man that he was due nothing, in light of what he knew about the Trust, Kury was required to act reasonably to ascertain whether, as a beneficiary, he had been harmed by Calechman’s conduct. Because Kury failed to act in the three years after his visit with Calechman, the applicable statute of limitations bars his breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Section 2A gives breach of fiduciary duty claims a three-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knows of the injury and its causal link to the fiduciary’s conduct.

Cohen v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2008-09-15

The motion judge found that Cohen’s breach of fiduciary duty claims were time barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims. See G. L. c. 260, § 2A. The complaint was filed on March 31, 2004; we agree with the judge that Cohen’s cause of action accrued more than three years before that date, or earlier than March 31, 2001.

Section 2A gives plaintiffs three years to bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

O'Connor v. Redstone · filed 2008-11-07

In this case the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims for breaches of fiduciary duty is G. L. c. 260, § 2A, which provides for a three-year period of limitation.

Section 2A gives a plaintiff three years to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim, beginning when the plaintiff knows of the injury caused by the fiduciary’s conduct.

Pasquale v. Brody, Hardoon, Perkins, & Kesten, LLP · filed 2010-03-29

Pasquale’s other claims against Brody Hardoon, which flow from the alleged corporate “freeze-out” that was also the genesis of the 2002 litigation, are barred by the statute of limitations. “Breach of fiduciary duiy is a cause of action in tort that is governed by G.L.c. 260, §2A, which provides for a three-year period of limitation.” ... She was thus sufficiently aware of the factual bases of these claims to start the limitations period more than three years before she filed this suit in 2006.

Section 2A gives a beneficiary three years to bring a breach of fiduciary duty tort claim, and the period does not begin until the beneficiary actually knows the trustee has repudiated the trust.

Yeomans v. Stackpole · filed 2013-04-13

Tort actions, including those for breach of a fiduciary duty, must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. G.L.c. 260, §2A. In cases where a fiduciary duty exists, the statute will not begin to run until a beneficiary acquires actual knowledge that the trustee has repudiated the trust. ... These misgivings alone are insufficient to constitute actual knowledge that Attorney Roche had repudiated the trust.

Section 2A requires claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting that breach to be filed within three years of accrual.

Todesca v. Todesca · filed 2017-11-15

To be timely, Charles's claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Albert and Paul (counts I, IV, and VI), and his claims against Newman for aiding and abetting the breaches (counts II, V, and VII), had to be commenced within three years of the date the causes of action accrued.

Section 2A gives a claimant three years to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim, starting when the claimant actually knows of the challenged action rather than its resulting harm.

MacDonald v. Engle · filed 2018-08-07

The three-year statute of limitations period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim is triggered by the claimant's actual knowledge of the action that constituted the alleged violation, and not by the claimant's knowledge of the harm that the action caused.

Section 2A subjects breach of fiduciary duty claims to a three-year limitations period.

JOHN E. LUNDGREN v. ROBERT HOFFER & Another. · filed 2024-11-21

Because it was also subject to a three-year statute of ... limitations, the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is also time barred. See G. L. c. 260, § 2A.

Section 2A’s three-year period can apply to a Massachusetts resident’s out-of-state personal injury claim when Massachusetts has a substantial interest in maintaining the action.

Nierman v. Hyatt Corp. · filed 2003-11-07

In the present case, Massachusetts has a substantial interest in the maintenance of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs are not out-of-State fomm shoppers; they are Massachusetts residents, and the impact of their injuries will be felt in this State.

Section 2A’s three-year tort limitations period applies to a claim against a Massachusetts defendant for conduct in Massachusetts, despite an injury in New Jersey.

Ristaino v. D.C. Bates Equipment Co. · filed 2004-05-12

For all of these reasons, the “functional approach” argues for applying Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations embodied in G.L.c. 260, §2A.

The three-year limitations period in § 2A does not govern a Texas injury claim when Massachusetts has no substantial interest in allowing the claim and Texas has the closer connection to it.

Nierman v. Hyatt Corp. · filed 2004-05-14

... but not by the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations. See G. L. c. 260, § 2A. ... We conclude that the Texas statute of limitations is the appropriate one to apply in this case.

Section 2A’s three-year period permits a tort claim arising in another jurisdiction when Massachusetts has a substantial interest in applying its limitations law and no exceptional circumstances make that application unreasonable.

Andersen v. Lopez · filed 2011-11-15

As a result, no exceptional circumstances in this case make it unreasonable for the forum (Massachusetts) to apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim the plaintiffs have brought.

Section 2A gives tort claims a three-year limitations period that begins when the cause of action accrues; a negligence claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of appreciable harm caused by the defendant.

Khatchatourian v. Encompass Insurance · filed 2010-10-14

The Khatchatourians’ negligence claim is governed by the three-year limitations period for tort claims contained in G. L. c. 260, § 2A, amended by St. 1973, c. 777, § 1. By its terms, that limitations period does not begin running until a plaintiff’s “cause of action accrues.”

Section 2A supplies the three-year limitations period for Massachusetts § 1983 claims; the claims cannot be dismissed as untimely when the complaint does not establish when plaintiffs knew of their injuries.

Griswold v. Driscoll · filed 2009-06-10

For § 1983 actions, the three-year statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury on which the action is based.” ... In this case, it is not clear from the Complaint when each of the individual plaintiffs had reason to know of the alleged injury to them.

Section 2A’s three-year period for claims against a receiver winding up an estate does not begin merely because the receivership ended.

In Re American Bridge Products, Inc. · filed 2010-03-09

But termination neither extinguishes ... liabilities nor under San Juan Hotel and the Clark treatise starts the limitations period running.

For fraud claims subject to Section 2A, reduced income alone does not start the limitations period when it gives no notice of the defendant's alleged misconduct.

Venditto v. Cunningham · filed 2018-07-27

In the light most favorable to plaintiff, however, notice of reduced income stream despite defendant's best efforts, as plaintiff alleges he assumed in 2012, is not commensurate with notice of defendant's self-interested undermining of that income stream, as plaintiff alleges he discovered only upon the sale of the business in August 2016. ... Accordingly, plaintiff's claims are not time-barred.