Complaint Alleging Negligence vs. Sprint Are Time-Barred, Says T-Mobile
Shalace Williams’ claims against T-Mobile for Sprint’s negligence while it was still an independent company are time-barred, one of multiple bases for T-Mobile’s forthcoming motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), T-Mobile’s counsel wrote U.S. District Judge Rachel Kovner for Eastern…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
New York in Brooklyn Monday (docket 1:24-cv-02732). Williams, administratrix of the late Darryl Williams' estate, seeks compensatory and punitive damages against T-Mobile for Sprint’s negligent failure to comply with a criminal investigation that led to Daryl Williams spending seven years in prison for a February 2013 robbery he didn’t commit (see 2404120049). When the dates in a complaint show that an action is barred by a statute of limitations, it’s “appropriate for a defendant to move to dismiss,” said T-Mobile’s letter to Kovner. The statute of limitations for negligence and negligent misrepresentation is three years, it said. Williams’ causes of action “accrued when the alleged negligent act resulted in injury,” which was June 12, 2014, "at the latest," it said. That’s the date when Daryl Williams was sentenced, it said. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred on June 12, 2017 -- nearly seven years before she filed her complaint against T-Mobile, it said.