tolls the running of the limitations period on compulsory counterclaims or reflect any federal policy on the question.”). Rather, the question of whether, and to what extent, the filing of a complaint waives or tolls the statute of limitations for compulsory state law counterclaims must be resolved with reference to the applicable state law. See Hartford v. Gibbons & Reed Co., 617 F.2d 567, 569 (10th Cir.1980). Many courts have held that the filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for compulsory counterclaims. See, e.g., Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Milliken & Co., 690 F.2d 380, 389 (4th Cir.1982); UST Capital Corp. v. Charter Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 684 F.Supp. 757, 759 (D.Mass.1986). This conclusion has not been unanimous, however. See Pro-Football, 127 F.3d at 1118-19 (<HOLDING>). Fortunately, the Colorado legislature has
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 holding that the concealment of ones identity does not toll the running of the statute of limitations holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim