[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1530 



                                LENORA SPAIN, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                             DEMETRIOS HASEOTES, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Stanley R. Cohen on brief for appellants.
            ________________

            Philip J. Moss and  Moon, Moss, McGill & Bachelder, P.A. on  brief
            ______________      ____________________________________

        for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                     JUNE 9, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record
                      __________



            and  the  parties' briefs,  we  affirm  the  judgment of  the
                                            ______



            district court  dismissing the complaint  of the  plaintiffs-



            appellants.    In  so  doing,  we  essentially  rely  on  the



            reasoning contained  in that  court's order, dated  August 9,



            1995.  We add only the following comments.



                           The state common law  claims of the plaintiffs



            are governed by state  law.  In cases  based on diversity  of



            citizenship or on pendent jurisdiction, the  federal district



            court must apply the forum state's  choice-of-law rules.  See
                                                                      ___



            Klaxon  Co.  v. Stentor  Elec. Mfg.  Co.,  313 U.S.  487, 496
            ___________     ________________________



            (1941);  Rogers v.  Grimaldi,  875 F.2d  994,  1002 (2d  Cir.
                     ______     ________



            1989).    Thus, we  look  to Massachusetts  conflicts  law to



            determine   what   limitations   period   it   would   apply.



            Massachusetts, in  turn, uses "the traditional  rule that the



            local law of the forum determines whether an action is barred



            by a statute of  limitations."  Hemric v. Reed &  Prince Mfg.
                                            ______    ___________________



            Co.,  739  F.2d  1,   2-3  (1st  Cir.  1984)  (applying   the
            ___



            Massachusetts statute of  limitations to a  claim based on  a



            tort which occurred in North Carolina); Cosme v. Whitin Mach.
                                                    _____    ____________



            Works, Inc., 417 Mass.  643, 645, 632 N.E.2d 832,  834 (1994)
            ___________



            (Massachusetts   considers   statutes   of   limitations   as



            procedural and,  as the forum state, applies its own law).



                      The limitations  period for torts  in Massachusetts



            is three years.  See M.G.L.c. 260,   2A.  Similarly, a three-
                             ___







                                         -2-





























            year limitations period  governs plaintiffs' claims based  on



            the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.   Id.   5B.   Because the
                                                  ___



            case at hand was commenced more than three years after all of



            the plaintiffs'  tort claims accrued, these  claims are time-



            barred.   We  can see  no  reason to  apply  the doctrine  of



            fraudulent concealment in the circumstances of this case.



                      The judgment of the  district court is affirmed and
                                                             ________



            all pending motions are therefore denied as moot.
                                              ______











































































                                         -3-