With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but they cite no Pennsylvania cases nor is there any rationale to support their argument. Buergers’ Sur-Reply Br. at 4-5. To the contrary, Pennsylvania courts have found that the borrowing statute applies to counterclaims. See Stoody Co. v. Wandel, 6 Ches. Co. Rep. 219, 220 (1954) (applying the borrowing statute to hold that defendant’s counterclaim that arose in California and was time-barred in California was also barred in Pennsylvania although the Pennsylvania limitations period had not expired.) 13 . Contrary to arguments in the briefing, under Pennsylvania law, the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations applicable to compulsory or permissive counterclaims. See Buergers’ Opp. Br. at 14; Harmer v. Hulsey, 321 Pa.Super. 11, 467 A.2d 867, 868-69 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Court finds no support in

A: holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law
B: holding that where counterclaim arises out of same transaction alleged in plaintiffs complaint is not barred by a running of the statute of limitations thereafter rather statute of limitations is suspended until counterclaim is filed
C: holding that a compulsory counterclaim was barred by pennsylvanias twoyear statute of limitations notwithstanding that the plaintiff filed his complaint late in the twoyear limitations period
D: recognizing twoyear statute of limitations for section 1981 claims filed in federal court in georgia
C.