681 F.2d 42, 49 (1st Cir.1982). In other words, “to toll the statute the action must be the case at bar, and not merely a somewhat related action arising from the same facts,” Ramirez de Arellano v. Alvarez de Choudens, 575 F.2d 315, 320 (1st Cir.1978). If these requirements are met, the filing of a complaint results in the statute of limitations running anew from the time that action comes to a definite end. Rodríguez-Garcia, 354 F.3d at 97. A pause is warranted to discuss the underlying policy behind this rule. This identicality requirement serves to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing the notice function of the statutes of limitations by asserting different claims in belated- federal court complaints. See Suzuki Motor Corp., 570 F.3d at 409; Rodríguez Narvaez, 895 F.2d at 43 (<HOLDING>). An extrajudicial letter must give fair notice
holding that statutes of limitations exist to prevent defendants from being surprised by longdormant causes of action holding that no private causes of action exist for violations of the ucpa holding that for requisite causal connection to exist the vehicle must be the instrumentality which caused the injury not merely a contribution which causes a condition which in turn causes the injury holding that statute of limitations did not prevent trustee from accounting for all transfers received by a claimant for purposes of selecting a distribution methodology including those that occurred outside the limitations period holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose