Equitable Tolling applies to criminal and civil proceedings, including deportation proceedings under the Immigration and Citizenship Act (INA).  Rights of convenience are a common legal principle that states that a limitation period is not pending in cases where, despite the application of due diligence, the claimant was unable or unable to discover the damage until after the expiry of the limitation period. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that as a fair remedy, disadvantage for the defendant must be considered before a fair toll is applied.  The Tribunal stated that, in the interests of justice, the toll doctrine was used to take into account both a defendant`s right not to be used to defend an avowed claim and an applicant`s right to assert a meritorious right where cheap circumstances prevented timely filing. The application of the right to fairness focuses on the applicant`s excusable ignorance of the limitation period and the absence of interference with the defendant.  A fair toll does not require active deception or misconduct on the part of the employer, but rather focuses on whether the Claimant acted with due regard to his or her rights.  The District Court`s order to render summary judgment for the defense was limited to (1) choice of law, (2) the explicit terms of the toll agreement, and (3) the application of the California Discovery Rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. This is a good case to store as a reference. The particular facts cannot be repeated and we do not have an opinion here as to whether toll agreements are a good idea. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
However, if you design and execute one, be careful and clear. While a toll agreement seems to benefit a plaintiff in the first place, there are also some good reasons why a defendant wants to enter into a toll agreement. One of the reasons given is to give an applicant additional time to assess the feasibility of his claim; In the absence of a statute of limitations that expires soon, an applicant may be compelled to file an appeal for the sole purpose of complying with a time limit. While it is possible that a dispute can be avoided altogether, it may be advantageous for a defendant to declare that he is prepared to waive the limitation period for a specified period or up to certain conditions. The second reason for the Burnett test is that a fair toll must fulfill the underlying purposes of the statute of limitations. At Brooks, we said that approving a toll agreement can be more about business than process strategy. Ct. 760, 3 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1959); Annot., 44 A.L.R.3d 482 (1972) (inducement by promise to settle); Annot., 39 A.L.R.3d 127 (1971) (inducement through transaction negotiations); 43 A.L.R.3d 756 (1972) (inducement by settlement agreement); Obstruction by the applicant, annot., 30 A.L.R.4th 1092 (1984); and delays due to war, Honda v. .