Ceriani v. Dionysus, Inc.

599 F.Supp.3d 365

Stacy CERIANI, Plaintiff,

v.DIONYSUS, INC. d/b/a Denny's, Defendant.

Case No.: 4:21cv108

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division.

Signed April 20, 2022

Robert John Haddad, Ruloff Swain Haddad Morecock Talbert & Woodward, PC, Virginia Beach, VA, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Ryan Coules, Semmes Bowen & Semmes PC, Vienna, VA, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Lawrence R. Leonard, United States Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is Defendant Dionysis, Inc.’s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and accompanying memorandum. ECF Nos. 11–12. Plaintiff Stacy Ceriani ("Plaintiff") filed a brief in opposition, ECF No. 14, and Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. 15. Having reviewed the briefing and the relevant authority, the undersigned has determined that a hearing is not necessary for adjudication of this motion in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 7(J). Accordingly, the motion is ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is DENIED .

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case comes before the Court under its diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), as it arose from a slip and fall at a Denny's restaurant in Williamsburg, Virginia, located within the Eastern District of Virginia. See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–2. Accordingly, Virginia law controls the substantive legal issues. Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co. , 993 F.2d 417, 420 (4th Cir. 1993) ("Because the situs of the accident was Virginia, the law of that state will apply in this diversity action.").

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on August 27, 2021, alleging injuries from the slip and fall, which occurred on July 5, 2019. The statute of limitations for a personal injury action in Virginia is two years. Va. Code. § 8.01-243(A). Although Plaintiff's statute of limitations ordinarily would have expired on July 5, 2021, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that a series of emergency orders (the "Emergency Orders") that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic tolled her statute of limitations and allowed her additional time to file her claim. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3–4. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the provisions in the Emergency Orders tolling statutes of limitation do not apply to Plaintiff's claim because the expiration of her statute of limitations did not fall within the period covered by the Emergency Orders, and accordingly, her claim is time-barred. See ECF No. 12 at 2–6. Plaintiff's opposition disputes Defendant's assertion, and argues that her claim is timely pursuant to the Emergency Orders. ECF No. 14 at 2–3. Thus, the only question before the Court on this motion to dismiss is whether the Emergency Orders operated to toll Plaintiff's statute of limitations, making Plaintiff's Complaint timely.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. , 458 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir. 2006). While considering this motion, the court must assume that the facts alleged are true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship , 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000) ; Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari , 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). "A court may dismiss on the grounds of a statute of limitations defense if the necessary facts ‘clearly appear on the face of the complaint.’ " Stewart v. Univ. of N.C. Sys. , 673 F. App'x 269, 271 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27 , 728 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir. 2013) ).

III. THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA'S JUDICIAL EMERGENCY ORDERS

Between March 16, 2020, and July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a number of orders declaring and extending a judicial emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (the "Emergency Orders"). The first order declaring a judicial emergency, issued on March 16, 2020, declared that "all deadlines are hereby tolled and extended ... for a period of (21) days. " In Re: Order Declaring a Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency, Mar. 16, 2020, https://www.vacourts.gov/news/items/covid/2020_0317_supreme_court_of_virginia.pdf (the "First Order Declaring a Judicial Emergency").

As a result of the ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court of Virginia continued to issue additional orders that extended the declaration of emergency, and the tolling of statutes of limitations. The second order extending the declaration of judicial emergency, issued on March 27, 2020, explained that "[w]ith the exception of matters enumerated herein, all applicable deadlines, time schedules and filing requirements, including any applicable statute of limitations which would otherwise run during the period this order is in effect, are hereby tolled and extended ... for the duration of this Order. " In Re: Order Extending Declaration of Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency Declaring a Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency, Mar. 27, 2020, https://www.vacourts.gov/news/items/2020_0327_scv_order_extending_declaration_of_judicial_emergency.pdf (the "Second Order Extending the Judicial Emergency") (emphasis added).

The third order extending the declaration of judicial emergency, issued on April 22, 2020, again repeated that "[a]s recognized in the First and Second Orders, in district and circuit courts the statutes of limitation and case related deadlines are tolled during the Period of Judicial Emergency." In Re: Third Order Extending Declaration of Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency Declaring a Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency, April 22, 2020, https://www.vacourts.gov/news/items/covid/2020_0422_scv_order_extending_declaration_of_judicial_emergency.pdf (the "Third Order Extending the Judicial Emergency"). The Third Order Extending the Judicial Emergency went on to define tolling as "[t]o suspend or stop temporarily."

On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued its seventh order extending declaration of judicial emergency in response to the COVID-19 emergency. In Re: Seventh Order Extending Declaration of Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency Declaring a Judicial Emergency in Response to COVID-19 Emergency, Jul. 8, 2020, https://www.vacourts.gov/news/items/covid/2020_0708_scv_seventh_order.pdf (the "Seventh Order Extending the Judicial Emergency"). In the Seventh Order Extending the Judicial Emergency, the Supreme Court of Virginia ended the tolling of statutes of limitations, stating that:

beginning on July 20, 2020, for cases in the district and circuit courts, there shall be no further tolling of statutes of limitations or other case-related deadlines. The tolling period as a result of the Judicial Emergency for such statutes of limitation and deadlines shall be limited to March 16, 2020 through July 19, 2020. This period of tolling shall not be counted for purposes of determining statutes of limitation or other case-related deadlines. If, for example, the circuit court entered final judgment on March 10, 2020, six days before the Judicial Emergency was declared, then the total number of days of the tolling period resulting from the Judicial Emergency shall not count toward the 90-day deadline for filing the petition for appeal under Rule 5:17(a)(1), and this deadline would be extended for a period of 84 days after the tolling period ends on July 20, 2020.

Id. (emphasis added).

IV. ANALYSIS

1. The Emergency Orders are an Integral Part of Virginia's Statute of Limitations.

At the outset, the Court notes that it must apply Virginia law governing statutes of limitations. Adams v. Am. Optical Corp. , 979 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that while sitting in diversity, the federal court interprets and applies the substantive law including statutes of limitations). In doing so, the Court must also apply "Virginia rules and laws that are "an integral part of the state statute of limitations." Zamma Canada Ltd. v. Zamma Corp. , No. 3:20CV353-HEH, 2020 WL 7083940, at *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2020) (citing Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. , 446 U.S. 740, 746, 100 S.Ct. 1978, 64 L.Ed.2d 659 (1980) ). Here, the Supreme Court of Virginia's Emergency Orders tolling deadlines, including statutes of limitation in response to COVID-19, are "integral to any Virginia court's analysis of a statute of limitations issue." Id. at *6. Accordingly, the Emergency Orders are applicable to the Court's analysis in this case.

2. The Emergency Orders Excluded the Tolling Period from Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations.

The sole question before the Court is whether the Emergency Orders operated to extend the statute of limitations and provide Plaintiff with additional time to file her claim. Defendant argues that the Emergency Order tolling statutes of limitations are only applicable to statutes of limitations or deadlines which would have expired during the 126-day tolling period between March 16, 2020, and July 19, 2020. ECF No. 12 at 2-6. Because the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claim expired on July 5, 2021, Defendant contends that it did not fall within the tolling period and thus Plaintiff was not entitled to additional time to file her claim. Id. In support of its argument, Defendant relies on the language in the Seventh Order Extending the Judicial Emergency stating that "there shall be no further tolling of statutes of limitations" and "the tolling period as a result of the Judicial Emergency for such statutes of limitation and deadlines shall be limited to March 16, 2020 through July 19, 2020." Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff, also relying on the language in the Seventh Order Extending the Judicial Emergency, argues that the language "[t]his period of...