Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 96-2370
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
General,
and
Edgardo Rodriguez-Quilichini,
_____________________________
Assist
____________________
October 9, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
This
appeal
concerns
the
judgment
dismissing a 42 U.S.C.
applicable Puerto
limitations
run on
We write to
day plaintiffs'
and the district court for Puerto Rico may have been somewhat
inconsistent
on
that
point.
Therefore
we
take
this
I.
I.
Plaintiffs'
defendants,
brother
policemen
in
Background
Background
was
Puerto
shot
and
Rico
on
killed
May
1994.
by
19,
the
1994.
They filed
their
year statute
Code,
P.R.
of limitations,
Laws
responded that
Ann.
tit.
they did
Article 1868(2)
31,
of the
5298(2).
not know of
their cause
Plaintiffs
of action
further
1994.
Civil
The
determined
complaint.
-2-
Plaintiffs moved
to vacate
the judgment
of dismissal,
that
1995,
their complaint
the
next court
was
20, 1995.
timely filed
May
on Monday,
May 22,
day.
The
district
court summarily
followed.
The
parties'
briefs
This
appeal
did not
adequately
of accrual
ordered.
further argument.
II.
II.
The
governed by the
filing this
1983 claim is
limitations for
278-80
Discussion
Discussion
(1985).
In Puerto
Rico
the applicable
limitation
Article 1868(2)
of the
Civil
Code, P.R.
Laws Ann.
tit. 31,
One year
5298(2);
Torres v.
______
or 366 days
in leap year.
Olivo
_____
9, 10 (D.P.R.
1990);
-3-
Yeinsip
_______
113, 115
(D.P.R. 1989).
Although
law,
the date
of accrual
accrual period
for a
is determined by state
is a federal
law question.
which
the
Alicea,
______
action
959
F.2d
is based."
349,
353
starts when
the injury on
Rivera-Muriente
_______________
(1st
Cir.
v. Agosto_______
1992).
In
20, 1994,
the
date on
which
The
plaintiffs learned
this
is May
of
their
brother's death.
The
question that
concerns
us
here
is
whether
the
limitations
period begins
following day.
on
In this
the date
of
accrual or
the
Rico,
"closely
related
Wilson,
______
471 U.S.
questions
of
at
Thus,
269.
which
the
limitations
. .
application."
when
the federal
See
___
court
period
starts
to
run
should
be
limitations period.
Accordingly, we determine
the question
____________________
it is
consistent with
Fed. R.
Civ. R.
-4-
appear
The inconsistencies
Article 388
72, provides:
be done is
the first
unless the
computed by
day, and
excluding
including the
last day
is
last,
a holiday,
and
In
computing
any
period
prescribed or allowed
order
time
by these rules, by
statute,
the
day of
of
time
begins
the act,
event or
run
shall
not
be
included. . . .
In contrast, Article
tit. 31,
5299, provides:
The time
kinds
of
for
the
actions,
special provision to
prescription
when
there
of
is
all
no
be
counted from
the day
on which
they
____________________
In
computing
prescribed
or
any
allowed
or
default
designated period
period
by
of
.
day of the
from
which
of time begins
time
.
any
act,
the
to run
-5-
In
some
federal
cases, with
period
was held
to include
could
have been
instituted.
which
we
now disagree,
the first
day that
the action
Rosa
____
Viera, 632 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.P.R. 1986), aff'd, 815 F.2d 2,
_____
_____
v. Figueroa, 642
________
LaChapel v.
________
at 10; Dennis
______
de la Cruz
__________
equated the
"[The]
date
of
limitations
to federal
(1st
accrual,
i.e.,
____
the
day
on
which
the
law."
Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz,
_____________
____
23 F.3d
607, 610
case).
However,
in other
on the day
cases,
with
which
we
F.Supp. 24, 26
Conde v.
_____
Yeinsip,
_______
725 F.Supp.
at 115;
now
agree,
period began
See Salamanca v.
___ _________
(D.P.R. 1996);
v.
1987).
-6-
We
now
conclude
that
the
method
of
computing
the
applies in this
Puerto Rico:
the day in
arises
counts
provides
the
in
the
starting
of action
sense
that
it
point
for
the
computation of the
prescriptive term; it
is
counted
not,
however,
within
that
term.
We
in Salamanca noted,
_________
statute of limitations
prescribes
this
1983 action.
held
statute also
Cintron
_______
Ass'n,
_____
v.
58 P.R.Dec.
Yeinsip
_______
821, 828
Article
be applied only
been adopted,"
applying
prescriptive period,
As
"is
388
correct
over the
"is a
the
suppletory
if no special law
and Article
v.
1869
Here,
(1943);
explained,
[provision], to
matter has
171, 176-77
Andino, 76 P.R.Dec.
______
in
62 P.R.Dec.
specific
periods of
rule
plaintiffs' action
to
compute
accrued on
the
May 20,
-7-
1994, but
the statute
until the
next day,
period
would have
excluding the
to
the
of limitations did
expired on Saturday,
following
The
Monday.
It
not begin
to run
applicable 365-day
May 20,
1995, but,
follows
that
plaintiffs'
Accordingly,
court
dismissing
proceedings.
we vacate
______
the
the
complaint
judgment
and
of the
remand
______
for
district
further
-8-