
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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  Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on  brief            ______________      ____________________________________        for appellees.                                 ____________________                                     JUNE 9, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record                      __________            and  the  parties' briefs,  we  affirm  the  judgment of  the                                            ______            district court  dismissing the complaint  of the  plaintiffs-            appellants.    In  so  doing,  we  essentially  rely  on  the            reasoning contained  in that  court's order, dated  August 9,            1995.  We add only the following comments.                           The state common law  claims of the plaintiffs            are governed by state  law.  In cases  based on diversity  of            citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the  federal district            court must apply the forum state's  choice-of-law rules.  See                                                                      ___            Klaxon  Co.  v. Stentor  Elec. Mfg.  Co.,  313 U.S.  487, 496            ___________     ________________________            (1941);  Rogers v.  Grimaldi,  875 F.2d  994,  1002 (2d  Cir.                     ______     ________            1989).    Thus, we  look  to Massachusetts  conflicts  law to            determine   what   limitations   period   it   would   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."  Hemric v. Reed &  Prince Mfg.                                            ______    ___________________            Co.,  739  F.2d  1,   2-3  (1st  Cir.  1984)  (applying   the            ___            Massachusetts statute of  limitations to a  claim based on  a            tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach.                                                    _____    ____________            Works, Inc., 417 Mass.  643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832,  834 (1994)            ___________            (Massachusetts   considers   statutes   of   limitations   as            procedural and,  as the forum state, applies its own law).                      The limitations  period for torts  in Massachusetts            is three years.  See M.G.L.c. 260,   2A.  Similarly, a three-                             ___                                         -2-            year limitations period  governs plaintiffs' claims based  on            the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.   Id.   5B.   Because the                                                  ___            case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of            the plaintiffs'  tort claims accrued, these  claims are time-            barred.   We  can see  no  reason to  apply  the doctrine  of            fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.                      The judgment of the  district court is affirmed and                                                             ________            all pending motions are therefore denied as moot.                                              ______                                         -3-
