Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Troy Petty v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Company, 4th Cir. (2016)
Troy Petty v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Company, 4th Cir. (2016)
Troy Petty v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Company, 4th Cir. (2016)
No. 15-2208
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.
James C. Fox,
Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-00062-F)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Troy D. Petty and Annah A. Petty appeal from the district
courts order dismissing their civil complaint as barred by the
statute
of
limitations.
The
Pettys
sought
damages
under
I.
On appeal, the Pettys do not dispute that their claims are
barred by the statute of limitations.
the
Defendant
waived
the
protection
of
the
statute
of
We
assistance.
The
instant
case
concerns
statute
of
Id. at 286.
limitations
differently
from
2
statutes
of
repose
is
by
forbidding
parties
from
extending
the
four
year
statute
of
II.
Next, the Pettys assert that, even if the Defendant did not
waive its statute of limitations defense, they were entitled to
equitable
attempts.
tolling
during
the
time
of
the
Defendants
repair
See Chao
sufficient
applied.
detail
to
determine
whether
equitable
tolling
asserting
limitations,
technical
when
representations,
or
defense,
delay
has
conduct,
the
such
been
induced
repudiation
of
statute
of
by
acts,
which
would
as
However, a plaintiff
Architects, P.A., 442 S.E.2d 73, 74-75 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
In
this case, regardless of when the repairs took place or how long
they took, the Pettys have failed to make any allegation that
they relied on any representations by the Defendant.
Contending that they were not required to do so, the Pettys
rely on Haywood St. Redevelopment Corp. v. Harry S. Peterson,
Co., 463 S.E.2d 564, 567 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995), which held that
the limitations period for a breach of express warranty claim
may be tolled during the time the seller endeavors to make
repairs to enable the product to comply with a warranty.
In
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
not applying the equitable tolling doctrine.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district
facts
court.
and
materials
legal
before
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
because
presented
would
not
the
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED