Quiah v. Devereux Found., Inc., 2023 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 145, 2023 WL 6051290 (September 18, 2023) (Leadbetter, S.J.) Alberta Quiah, Plaintiff, appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County’s grant of preliminary objections to her amended complaint against the Devereux Foundation—her former employer—and James Sesher, a detective in the Easttown Township Police Department (collectively, Defendants), and dismissal of her amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
1. Where a federal court dismisses federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, pendant state claims dismissed without prejudice may be transferred to state court pursuant to Section 5103(b) by promptly filing a certified transcript of the federal judgment and related pleadings in the appropriate Pennsylvania court.
2. Filing a new complaint in the state court without the certified transcript, particularly one which is not identical to the state claims asserted in the federal complaint, does not effect a transfer under Section 5103(b) and does not preserve the tolling provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), where such a transfer is effected, the state statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of the federal case and for 30 days thereafter. To this period, then, is added whatever amount of time was remaining on the statute of limitations at the time the federal suit was filed in order to determine when the statute runs. In other words, after the 30 days, the statute of limitations is no longer tolled and the plaintiff is back, for purposes of the statute of limitations, to where she was on the day she filed the federal action.
In this case, it is clear that the complaint filed on October 23, 2020 did not effect a transfer pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(b). It is equally clear that, by the time the amended complaint with the certified transcript was filed on November 25, the statute of limitations had run. This is true whether the dismissal is deemed to have occurred on September 22 or October 6, because the statute was tolled for only 30 days—at the latest, November 5—and Plaintiff had no time left when the federal action was filed.
Finally, we address Plaintiff’s second argument, that her ineffective filing of the new complaint on October 23 should be considered an effective transfer because she later filed an amended complaint attaching the necessary documents. To accept that argument and allow amendment to remedy the defective filing after the statute of limitations has passed would eviscerate the statutory scheme and allow an end run around its clear mandates.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm.
