In a diversity case governed by State A substantive law, if tolling ends before filing due to service, the claim may be time-barred; According to Guaranty Trust v. York, which law governs tolling?

In a diversity case governed by State A substantive law, if tolling ends before filing due to service, the claim may be time-barred; According to Guaranty Trust v. York, which law governs tolling?

• A. The federal government’s law
• B. State substantive law
• C. Federal procedural law
• D. The state of service law

Answer: (B)

In diversity cases, the court applies the forum state’s law on statutes of limitations, and tolling falls under that substantive limitations law. Guaranty Trust v. York holds that the time limits governing whether a claim is enforceable are determined by the state’s substantive law, not by federal procedure. So when the case is governed by State A substantive law, the tolling rules used to determine if the action is timely are those of State A. If tolling ends before filing due to service, the claim can be time-barred under State A’s limitations rules. The federal government has no tolling rule to apply here, and there isn’t a separate “state of service” rule that controls; the governing rule is State A’s substantive tolling law.

In diversity cases, the court applies the forum state’s law on statutes of limitations, and tolling falls under that substantive limitations law. Guaranty Trust v. York holds that the time limits governing whether a claim is enforceable are determined by the state’s substantive law, not by federal procedure. So when the case is governed by State A substantive law, the tolling rules used to determine if the action is timely are those of State A. If tolling ends before filing due to service, the claim can be time-barred under State A’s limitations rules. The federal government has no tolling rule to apply here, and there isn’t a separate “state of service” rule that controls; the governing rule is State A’s substantive tolling law.