USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1530
LENORA SPAIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
DEMETRIOS HASEOTES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Stanley R. Cohen on brief for appellants. ________________
Philip J. Moss and Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on brief ______________ ____________________________________
for appellees.
____________________
JUNE 9, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the record __________
and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the ______
district court dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs-
appellants. In so doing, we essentially rely on the
reasoning contained in that court's order, dated August 9,
1995. We add only the following comments.
The state common law claims of the plaintiffs
are governed by state law. In cases based on diversity of
citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the federal district
court must apply the forum state's choice-of-law rules. See ___
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 ___________ ________________________
(1941); Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 1002 (2d Cir. ______ ________
1989). Thus, we look to Massachusetts conflicts law to
determine what limitations period it would apply.
Massachusetts, in turn, uses "the traditional rule that the
local law of the forum determines whether an action is barred
by a statute of limitations." Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg. ______ ___________________
Co., 739 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1984) (applying the ___
Massachusetts statute of limitations to a claim based on a
tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach. _____ ____________
Works, Inc., 417 Mass. 643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994) ___________
(Massachusetts considers statutes of limitations as
procedural and, as the forum state, applies its own law).
The limitations period for torts in Massachusetts
is three years. See M.G.L.c. 260, 2A. Similarly, a three- ___
-2-
year limitations period governs plaintiffs' claims based on
the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Id. 5B. Because the ___
case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of
the plaintiffs' tort claims accrued, these claims are time-
barred. We can see no reason to apply the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed and ________
all pending motions are therefore denied as moot. ______
-3-