Tommy, a cashier, embezzles money from the deli where he works. The missing money is noticed a week later, but Tommy's boss and sole owner of the deli suspects another cashier.
When confronted, the other cashier denies any involvement and claims that he suspects Tommy. Nevertheless, the boss sues the other cashier for embezzlement and loses in court.
Two years after confronting the other cashier, the boss finds conclusive evidence that Tommy embezzled the money. The evidence includes a security tape and statements from witnesses. The next day, Tommy's boss sues him for embezzlement.
The court dismisses the lawsuit because the statute of limitations has run. In this state, the statute of limitations for embezzlement is two years from the date the offense should have been discovered with reasonable efforts. The court finds that the statute of limitations started to run when the initial suspected implicated Tommy. Had Tommy's boss reasonably followed up on what the initial suspect said, he would have enough facts to sue Tommy for embezzlement. Since he sued two years and one day after that date, his claim against Tommy was barred.
