United States · Federal statutory limitations
How does section 1367(d) affect refiling a supplemental state claim?
Section 1367(d) stops the limitation clock for qualifying claims while pending in federal court and for thirty days after dismissal, unless state law provides a longer tolling period. Artis rejects a mere thirty-day grace-period reading. Establish the remaining state time and applicable state rules before determining a refiling date.
- Period
- State limitation clock held in abeyance during qualifying pendency and thirty days after dismissal, unless state law provides longer tolling
- Trigger
- Qualifying federal pendency and dismissal, with the remaining state limitation clock
- Rule
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)
S. Code, laws in effect January 6, 2025. The subsequent-law review covers the retained 119th Congress corpus through Public Law 119-118, approved September 30, 2026. Its scoped candidate findings do not establish every claim-specific exception or later judicial application. This page requires the stated covered cause and legally established event.
Source guide · No automated date
How does section 1367(d) affect refiling a supplemental state claim?
A dismissal date plus thirty days cannot reproduce the required state stop-clock computation. The underlying state period, remaining time and qualifying tolling facts are unsupported, so no computed or paid date is supplied.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)What lawyers say
5.0“The platform is really easy to use.”
Michael B.Employment litigation attorney · California
“The Evidence Record saved us time with our insurance on bankruptcy matters.”
MariaBankruptcy and commercial attorney · London, UK
“The most up-to-date service we could find.”
Li ChenArbitration practitioner · Singapore
Which event starts this particular limitation?
Section 1367(d) stops the limitation clock for qualifying claims while pending in federal court and for thirty days after dismissal, unless state law provides a longer tolling period. Artis rejects a mere thirty-day grace-period reading. Establish the remaining state time and applicable state rules before determining a refiling date.
Responsible actor. The claimant refiling a qualifying supplemental state-law claim.
Identify a claim asserted under section 1367(a), or the specified related voluntarily dismissed claim.
Establish the underlying state limitation period and time remaining when qualifying pendency began.
Preserve federal filing, pendency and dismissal records, and determine any longer state tolling.
This guide addresses the statutory tolling effect on qualifying supplemental claims. It does not identify the underlying state period or compute a universal thirty-day refiling deadline.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)Which statutory comparisons and filing events must be resolved?
- Qualifying federal pendency and dismissal, with the remaining state limitation clock
- Record the governing state limitation period and time remaining when the qualifying federal claim became pending. Section 1367(d) stops that clock during qualifying federal pendency and thirty days after dismissal, unless state law supplies longer tolling. Then resolve state computation and filing rules. Artis rejects treating thirty days as the entire refiling period.
- Refile in the appropriate state forum after the complete state-period and federal-tolling analysis. Preserve both court dockets and filing receipts.
Retained 2024 annual U.S. Code, laws in effect January 6, 2025. The subsequent-law review covers the retained 119th Congress corpus through Public Law 119-118, approved September 30, 2026. Its scoped candidate findings do not establish every claim-specific exception or later judicial application. This page requires the stated covered cause and legally established event. Court computation uses the retained December 1, 2025 FRCP compilation; identified agency regulations use their separately stated 2026 API editions.
A dismissal date plus thirty days cannot reproduce the required state stop-clock computation. The underlying state period, remaining time and qualifying tolling facts are unsupported, so no computed or paid date is supplied.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)What distinguishes these procedural facts?
Two fictitious qualifying claims are dismissed on the same date. One had forty days remaining on its state clock when qualifying federal pendency began; another had six months. The shared dismissal date does not make their refiling deadlines identical.
A dismissal date plus thirty days cannot reproduce the required state stop-clock computation. The underlying state period, remaining time and qualifying tolling facts are unsupported, so no computed or paid date is supplied.
Which qualifications can change this limitation analysis?
- Clock stops
- Artis interprets the provision as suspension of the clock, not simply permission to file during a thirty-day grace period.
- Longer state tolling
- The statutory proviso requires reviewing the applicable state law.
- Qualifying claim
- A state claim’s presence in a federal pleading does not by itself establish every section 1367(d) qualification or eliminate state-law analysis.
- This guide addresses the statutory tolling effect on qualifying supplemental claims. It does not identify the underlying state period or compute a universal thirty-day refiling deadline.
- A dismissal date plus thirty days cannot reproduce the required state stop-clock computation. The underlying state period, remaining time and qualifying tolling facts are unsupported, so no computed or paid date is supplied.
What must be completed and preserved?
Questions about this particular statutory limitation
How does section 1367(d) affect refiling a supplemental state claim?
Must every claim be refiled exactly within thirty days?
No. Artis requires the stop-clock analysis, including time remaining under the state limitation and the statutory postdismissal tolling.
Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71, 83–93 (2018)Different limitation for a federal claimCan state law provide a longer tolling period?
Yes. Section 1367(d) expressly preserves that qualification.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)Different federal damages limitationCan a dismissal date alone determine refiling?
No. The state period, remaining time, qualifying pendency and applicable state rules also matter.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)Different notice-based federal court actionOfficial sources and review
Provisions used (5)
| Provision | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) | This statutory actor, event, period and qualifications |
| Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71, 83–93 (2018) | The separately identified agency procedure, related statutory requirement or primary decision |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) | The separately identified agency procedure, related statutory requirement or primary decision |
| 15 U.S.C. § 15b, Clayton Act § 4B | The separately identified agency procedure, related statutory requirement or primary decision |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) | The separately identified agency procedure, related statutory requirement or primary decision |