The New Jersey Appellate Division recently addressed the accrual of causes of action in the context of a Plaintiff seeking to invoke the Discovery Rule as a means to toll applicable limitations periods. In Caprio v. Nutley Park ShopRite, Inc., No. A-0156-21 (App. Div. Sep. 21, 2022), Plaintiff, Gino Caprio alleged that in mid-November 2018, while he was present at Shoprite in Nutley Park, New Jersey, he was advised to leave the premises by ShopRite manager John Purcaro. Purcaro explained that this ShopRite location’s parent company, Wakefern Food Corp., received emails from a female patron lodging complaints about Plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct in her presence and while on the ShopRite premises. Plaintiff alleged that Purcaro then forcibly removed him from the ShopRite in the presence of other patrons who knew the Plaintiff. Plaintiff described the event as “humiliating and embarrassing” which caused him “physical and mental distress.”
Plaintiff did not take immediate legal action following these alleged events. Instead, he attempted to obtain copies of the referenced email complaints from ShopRite. In May 2020, Plaintiff received written notification from ShopRite that, after a search of both the Wakefern and ShopRite databases, no such email complaint was ever received. Plaintiff filed a complaint nearly one year later in May 2021, asserting claims of infliction of emotional distress, defamation and a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
Defendants ShopRite and Purcaro moved to dismiss the Complaint by arguing that each of the applicable statutes of limitation for each of Plaintiff’s claims had expired since the November 2018 incident. Plaintiff argued in opposition that the motion was premature and that he was entitled to discovery given that he had received an undated letter from ShopRite in May 2020 explaining that there were no complaints filed against him, which Plaintiff argued would toll the limitations period pursuant to the Discovery Rule.
The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint and asserted that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitation and that Plaintiff failed to establish any basis for invocation of the “Discovery Rule.”
On appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with the motion court’s finding that every cause of action accrued in mid-November 2018 when Plaintiff was removed from the ShopRite. In so deciding, the court explained that a defamation claim must be filed within one year of the publication of an actionable writing or utterance and that the statute of limitations for a New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim will accrue beginning from the date of the negligent act or omission that caused the Plaintiff’s harm to occur. The Court explained that each of Plaintiff’s claims accrued in mid-November 2018 as that was the date the alleged harms were caused.
Plaintiff argued on appeal that since he received the redacted letter from ShopRite explaining that no complaints were filed against him in May 2020, the Discovery Rule would allow for the tolling of the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiff argued that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence, should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim. However, the Court rejected this argument as irrelevant because the actionable harms occurred in November 2018 and Plaintiff did not “discover” that he suffered harm in May 2020 for the purposes of invoking the Discovery Rule.
Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the State’s understanding of when tort claims are said to accrue for the purpose of tolling of the statute of limitations for a particular claim. The Discovery Rule may not be used as a mechanism for a Plaintiff to toll the applicable limitations period merely because more evidence of an actionable harm came to light at some date after the actual harm serving as the basis for a claim took place.
