Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 § 150 (three-year limitation period for claims under wage laws); Mass. Gen. L. c. 260 § 2 (six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims); Mass. Gen. L. c. 260 § 5A (four-year limitation period for claims brought under Chapter 93A); N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-1 (six-year statute of limitations for claims under New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act); N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-1 (six- year statute of limitations for contract claims). In arguing that Plaintiff Prem’s claims are untimely, Coverall makes numerous assumptions about Plaintiffs’ legal theories and then asserts that Prem’s claims all accrued more than a decade ago, when he entered into the franchise agreement with Coverall.

All of the claims against Fremont, the originating lender, arise out of events which occurred before or at the August 21, 2002 loan closing. As more than six years has passed since the loan closing, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Fremont are barred under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. Case 3:09-cv-03886-JAP-DEA Document 3 Filed 08/19/09 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 54 15 1638304v.1 IV.

Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 124 N.J. 398 34, 35 (1991) Williams v. BASF Catal;x:sts LLC, 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 1, 4, 21, 2014) 22, 23, 25 Williamson Count;x: Regional Planning: Comm'n v. Hamilton 2, 7-8, Bank of Johnson Cit;x:, 473 u. s. 172 (1985) 20, 32 Wreden v. TownshiE of Lafayette, 436 N.J.Super. 117, 92 32-33 A.3d 681, 686 (App.Div. 2014) - . Young: v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 152 31 n2 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002) Zinermon v. Burch, 494 us lf3 (1990) 33 U.S. Constitution 20, 21,- 25, 26, 31, 33 General Statute of Limitations: N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 31 New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:550-1 et 3, 4, 11, seq. ( "MLUL") 12, 13, 15, 28 New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to 3, 4, 12, 10: 4.-21 ("Sunshine Act") 15, 28 New Jersey Open Public Records Act, N.J.S_.A. 47:1A-1 to 3, 6, 29 47:1A-4 ( "OPRA") Case 3:17-cv-01174-PGS-DEA Document 21 Filed 05/11/17 Page 5 of 46 PageID: 715 iv New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:l6-52 et 9 seq. Case 3:17-cv-01174-PGS-DEA Document 21 Filed 05/11/17 Page 6 of 46 PageID: 716 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is not a federal action that attacks the final judgments of a state court.

St., ¶ 44). As such, the 5/4/2011 Agreement sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirements for a new acknowledgement and promise under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-24 and therefore constitutes a new contract, governed by the six-year statute of limitations under N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-1. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, plaintiff’s substantive relief being sought is governed by the underlying contract for the sales of goods, defendant has made various partial payments before and after the expiration of the UCC four-year statute of limitations, thereby reviving the statute of limitations for the statutory period from the time of the payment.

Ann. § 56:8- 19 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19 N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1 N. J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8- 19 N. J. Stat.

Plaintiff’s class claims must be commenced within six years of accrual. See N.J. STAT. § 2A:14-1. Plaintiff concedes that her “cause of action accrued on the date that Saxon promised to deliver the permanent modification—September 1, 2009.”

The Complaint sufficiently alleges representations that are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer under New York and California consumer protection statutes. California and New York consumer protection laws prohibit “not only advertising which 51 E.g., Golden Pac. Bancorp v. FDIC, 273 F.3d 509, 519 (2d Cir.2001) (limitations on New York claim for unjust enrichment seeking restitution is six years and begins to accrue on occurrence of the wrongful act); Elliott v. Qwest Communications Corp., 25 A.D.3d 897, 898 (N.Y. 3d Dep’t 2006) (same); see also, e.g., M.G.L.A. 260 § 2 (Massachusetts warranty); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5813 (Michigan common law); Minn. § 541.05 (Minnesota unjust enrichment); N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-1 (New Jersey unjust enrichment); O.R.C. § 2305.07 (Ohio unjust enrichment); Wis. Stat. § 893.43 (Wisconsin unjust enrichment). 52 See, e.g., Mullins v. Digital Direct, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 661 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming Rule 23(b)(3) certification of class of consumers who “purchased Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is disseminated”); In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 307 F.R.D. 656, 666 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (“[C]ourts commonly certify classes with start dates linked to the statute of limitations where, as here, the challenged conduct predates the relevant limitations periods.”

& Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (three years); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1 (six years). These differences in statutes of limitations—notably, for purchasers in states with one- or two- year limitations—may bar some putative members' claims.

§ 407.1107; Kennedy v. Axa Equitable Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2688881, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2007) (New Jersey's 6-year statute of limitations covers insurance contracts and claims under the CFA); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1. Case 2:12-cv-01983-GHK-MRW Document 94 Filed 10/28/13 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:819 Case: 14-80058 04/23/2014 ID: 9070478 DktEntry: 1-1 Page: 78 of 98 (78 of 100) EXHIBIT A PAGE 82 Case 2:12-cv-01150-DMG-MAN Document 284 Filed 07/07/14 Page 84 of 106 Page ID #:13751 53002717.

§ 407.1107; Kennedy v. Axa Equitable Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2688881, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2007) (New Jersey's 6-year statute of limitations covers insurance contracts and claims under the CFA); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1. Case 2:12-cv-01983-GHK-MRW Document 94 Filed 10/28/13 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:819 53002717.