Editing Laches (equity) (section)

==Procedure==
{{primary sources section|find=laches |find2=defense|date=January 2016}}
A defense lawyer raising the defense of ''laches'' against a motion for [[Injunction|injunctive relief]] (a form of equitable relief) might argue that the plaintiff comes "waltzing in at the eleventh hour" when it is now too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing great harm that the plaintiff could have avoided. In certain types of cases (for example, cases involving time-sensitive matters, such as elections), a delay of even a few days is likely to be met with a defense of ''laches'', even where the applicable [[statute of limitations]] might allow the type of action to be commenced within a much longer time period. In courts in the United States, laches has often been applied even where a statute of limitations exists, although there is a division of authority on this point.<ref name="Little Bit of Laches" />

If a court does accept the laches defense, it can decide either to deny the request for equitable relief or to narrow the equitable relief that it would otherwise give. Even if the court denies equitable relief to a plaintiff because of laches, the plaintiff may still have a claim for legal relief if the statute of limitations has not run out.

Under the United States [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]], ''laches'' is an [[affirmative defense]], which means that the burden of asserting ''laches'' is on the party responding to the claim to which it applies.

{{blockquote|When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss.<ref>""Solow v. Nine West Group'', 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001).</ref>{{primary source inline|date=January 2016}}<ref>''Simons v. United States'', 452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay").</ref>{{primary source inline|date=January 2016}} }}

The ''laches'' defense does not apply if the claimant was a [[Minor (law)|minor]] during the time that the claim was not brought, so a party can bring a claim against an historical injustice when they reach their majority.<ref name=MajorityDefense>{{cite web|url=http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199|title=USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation, Proceeding No. 92046185|date= June 18, 2014 | publisher=United States Patent and Trademark Office|access-date=5 January 2016}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=January 2016}}