Laches vs Statute of Limitations

Laches is a defense that can be raised by the defendant in a lawsuit.

If a plaintiff takes too long to raise a claim, this delay can put the defendant in a significantly worse position to defend. For example, evidence or witnesses could be lost, or the defendant’s financial situation may have materially changed. So, the laches defense exists to protect defendants in these types of situations.

It is similar to, but different from a statute of limitations defense. A statute of limitations defense only requires showing that the plaintiff raised the claim after the statutory deadline. For a laches defense, however, the defendant must show that the plaintiff’s filing delay resulted in the defendant being in a worse position. For example

1) The potential award would have been less if the filing had been earlier

2) Property that is the subject of the lawsuit has already been sold or transferred

3) Witnesses or evidence are/is no longer available

Another example of the Laches Defense

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/121067R1.U.pdf

In late December of 2011, 4 Republicans (Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Rick Santorum), filed a civil suit because their names were not included on Virginia’s primary election ballot for the 2012 US presidential election. Mail in voting ballots were due on Jan 21, 2012. Regardless, the plaintiffs were essentially requesting the court to force the state of Virginia to add their names to the ballot after the request deadline. In short, they did not meet all of the statutory requirements defined by VA law to be added to the ballot within the deadline. The plaintiffs asserted, however, that the VA law was essentially unconstitutional.

The federal court relied on the laches defense to dismiss this claim. According to the court, the plaintiffs knew of this potential constitutional problem back in the summer. So, they could have raised this claim back then, instead of December (essentially 1 month before the election process would start). By delaying the action, the court held that the plaintiffs had “displayed an unreasonable and inexcusable lack of diligence” and that such delay “has significantly harmed the defendants.” This decision was upheld by the 4th circuit appeals court.