seeks to avoid the plain meaning of the rules by contending that the doctrines of waiver, equitable estoppel and equitable tolling of limitations periods preclude the debtors’ reliance upon these time limits. The debtors contend that the failure to comply with the time limits presents a subject matter jurisdiction defense which cannot be waived and which is not subject to the equitable doctrines. A. The jurisdictional nature of the time limits. Generally, a failure to comply with a limitations period may be excused by equitable doctrines such as estoppel, waiver, or equitable tolling, if the limitations period is not a jurisdictional requirement. See Valenzuela v. Kraft, 801 F.2d at 1172; See also, Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982) (<HOLDING>). If, however, the time period at issue is a
holding that the statute of limitations contained in section 2501 is jurisdictional and is not subject to tolling waiver or estoppel holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling