James Brown v. E.T. Browne Drug Company

── James Brown v. E.T. Browne Drug Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11991 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11991 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JAMES BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus E.T. BROWNE DRUG COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-05222-LMM ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James Brown, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his diversity products liability lawsuit as untimely. USCA11 Case: 25-11991 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11991 He argues that the district court erred by misapplying Georgia’s accrual law. We review de novo a district court’s “interpretation and ap- plication of a statute of limitations.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sher- iff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017). When it is apparent from the face of a complaint that the claims asserted therein are time-barred, the complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). United States v. Henco Holding Corp., 985 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2021). We review the record and all inferences drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F.2d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1992). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a com- plaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Our Rule 12(b)(6) decisions have adopted the ‘incorporation by reference’ doctrine, . . ., under which a document attached to a motion to dismiss may be considered by the court . . . if the attached docu- ment is: (1) central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (2) undisputed.” Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omit- ted). “‘Undisputed’ in this context means that the authenticity of the document is not challenged.” Id. A federal court sitting in diversity applies the substantive law of the state in which it sits. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Statutes of limitations are substantive laws and must be USCA11 Case: 25-11991 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-11991 Opinion of the Court 3 followed in diversity actions. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Claxton, 720 F.2d 1230, 1232 (11th Cir. 1983). Under Georgia law, “actions for injuries to the person shall be brought within two years after the right of action accrues.” O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. The two year statute of limitations in § 9-3-33 also governs product liability claims that involve injury to the per- son. Smith, Miller & Patch v. Lorentzson, 327 S.E. 2d 221, 222 (Ga. 1985). Georgia has a statute of repose for strict liability claims brought against product manufacturers which requires that the claim be brought within