it is an original civil action, the proceedings in an IDEA case are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to the Federal Rules, civil actions are initiated by a complaint and responded to by an answer, counterclaim, or motion to dismiss. Thus, the Board’s response was an answer and compulsory counterclaim. Pursuant to Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Board’s counterclaim was compulsory because it arises from the same administrative hearing and review officer’s decision, involves the same child and school district, and evokes consideration of the same law. In this circuit a compulsory counterclaim relates. back to the time of the filing of the, plaintiffs complaint. See Burlington Indus. v. Milliken & Co., 690 F.2d 380, 389 (4th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Because the Kirkpatricks timely filed the
holding that when plaintiff files timely action he effectively tolls running of statute of limitations for that occurrence meaning no justification for barring defendants counterclaim arising from that occur rence holding that the institution of plaintiffs suit tolls or suspends the running of the statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim holding that the filing of a complaint in a class action suit suspends the statute of limitations but a denial of class certification reactivates the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs 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 running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense