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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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
______________
for appellees.

Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on

____________________________________

br

____________________

JUNE 9, 1997
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

and

the

After carefully reviewing the

parties' briefs,

we

affirm

the

record

judgment of

the

______

district court

appellants.

dismissing the complaint

In

so

reasoning contained

1995.

doing,

we

in that

of the

essentially

plaintiffs-

rely

court's order, dated

on

the

August 9,

We add only the following comments.

The state common law

are governed by state

law.

claims of the plaintiffs

In cases

based on diversity

citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the

court must apply the forum state's

Klaxon Co.
___________

(1941);

Rogers v.
______

1989).

Thus, we

determine

what

Grimaldi,
________

look

federal district

choice-of-law rules.

v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,

________________________

875 F.2d

313 U.S.

994,

to Massachusetts

limitations

period

of

it

487, 496

1002 (2d

conflicts

would

See
___

Cir.

law to

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."

Co.,
___

1,

739

F.2d

2-3

Massachusetts statute of

(1st

Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg.

______
___________________

Cir.

1984)

limitations to a

(applying

claim based on

the

tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach.

_____
____________

Works, Inc., 417 Mass.

___________

643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832,

(Massachusetts

considers

procedural and,

as the forum state, applies its own law).

The limitations

is three years.

statutes

of

834 (1994)

limitations

period for torts

See M.G.L.c. 260,

___

2A.

as

in Massachusetts

Similarly, a three-

-2-

year limitations period

governs plaintiffs' claims based

the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.

Id.
___

5B.

on

Because the

case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of

the plaintiffs'

barred.

We

tort claims accrued, these

can see

no

reason to

apply

claims are time-

the doctrine

fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.

of

The judgment of the

district court is affirmed and

________

all pending motions are therefore denied as moot.

______

-3-