violations under chapter 517, contained in section 95.11 titled “Limitations other than for the recovery of real property,” provides that all “actions ... shall be commenced” within two years “with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, but not more than 5 years from the date such violation occurred.” § 95.11(4)(e). There, the two-year period is expressed in the language and structure of a statute of limitations (action “shall be commenced” within two years of discovery) and the five-year period is expressed in the language and structure of repose (“but not more than five years”). See, e.g., Puchner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 553 So.2d 216, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>). Other combined limitations/repose statutes
holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman recognizing that two limitations periods could apply to a claim under section 226 because it authorizes damages and penalties holding that plaintiffs civil conspiracy claim was barred by section 343909c holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed holding that the appellants claim was barred because it was commenced after the time periods prescribed by section 95114e