this opinion. [15] Reversed and remanded. MAY, J„ and BRADFORD, J., concur. 1 . The Deputies' spouses were parties to the original action as plaintiffs, each seeking damages for loss of consortium. However, the spouses’ claims were voluntarily dismissed in December 2014. 2 . 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 states in pertinent part, Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other property proceeding for red v. Clark, 548 P.2d 902, 906 (Utah 1976) (<HOLDING>); Unnever v. Stephens, 142 Ga.App. 787, 236
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 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 a compulsory counterclaim was barred by pennsylvanias twoyear statute of limitations notwithstanding that the plaintiff filed his complaint late in the twoyear limitations period holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that the institution of plaintiffs suit tolls or suspends the running of the statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim