WL 38026, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 4, 2007) (quoting Moon v. City of Lawrence, 267 Kan. 720, 727 (1999)).Statute of Repose: There is a rebuttable presumption that a product’s “useful safe life” expires 10 years after delivery. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3303(a).KentuckyStatute of Limitations: 1 year. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.140(1)(a). Kentucky applies the discovery rule, delaying accrual until the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, both that he has been injured and that his injury may have been caused by the defendant. Louisville Tr. Co. v. Johns-Manville Prod. Corp., 580 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Ky. 1979); see Cutter v. Ethicon, Inc., No. CV 5:19-443-DCR, 2020 WL 109809, at *5 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2020).Statute of Repose: There is a rebuttable presumption that a product was not defective if injury occurs more than 5 years after the sale date or more than 8 years after manufacture. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.310.LouisianaStatute of Limitations: 1 year. La. Civ. Code Ann. § 3492 (“prescriptive period”). Louisiana applies the doctrine of contra non valentem, otherwise known as the discovery rule. This doctrine states that prescription is delayed until the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of a causal relationship between the device/drug and his injury. See In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16-15607, 2019 WL 2995897, at *2 (E.D. La. July 9, 2019), reconsideration denied, No. 16-CV-15607, 2020 WL 375597 (E.D. La. Jan. 23, 2020).Statute of Repose: None.MaineStatute of Limitations: 6 years. 14 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 752. Maine does not recognize the discovery rule in drug/device cases. The action accrues “when a wrongful act is coupled with an injury, no matter how slight.” Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 342 A.2d 712, 716 (Me. 1975); see Novak v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 85, 93 (D. Me. 2018) (stating that the limitations began to run, at latest, when the plaintiff began to experience pain, vaginal leaking, and vaginal bleedin

After dismissal of the class claims in the Morgan suit in 2000, and while the appeal was pending, Taylor filed his own Title VII charge and civil action, individually alleging essentially the same claims as the class, while adding a retaliation claim.Reviewing summary judgment for the employer, the Fifth Circuit considers the limitations issues associated with the class case:"The most important question before us is the extent to which the Morgan class action tolled the statute of limitations governing Taylor's claims. The district court correctly determined that Taylor's non-Title VII promotion claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, Taylor v. Bunge Corp., 775 F.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir. 1985), LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492, while his non-Title VII pay disparity claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations, White v. BFI Waste Services, LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 291-92 (4th Cir. 2004), 28 U.S.C. § 1658. Thus, those are the key periods we examine.