[Download] "Schmidt v. Mckay" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Schmidt v. Mckay
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 12, 1977
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
LUMBARD, Circuit Judge: In this diversity action, Reginald V. Schmidt, a citizen of Florida, appeals from an order of the Eastern District, Bruchhausen, Judge, entered on August 9, 1976, dismissing his second amended complaint on the ground that the claims alleged therein are time-barred under the applicable New York statute of limitations, CPLR § 213. Defendants-appellees Raymond T. McKay and John F. Brady, the president and secretary-treasurer respectively of District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association - AFL-CIO (hereinafter ""MEBA""), are sued in their representative capacities on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who were members of MEBA in September 1971, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23.1.1 MEBA is an unincorporated association with headquarters in Brooklyn. Schmidt alleges (1) that appellees breached a contractual obligation to negotiate an agreement with the trustees of the MEBA pension plan under which he would be provided with credits for past service, or, in the alternative, to make appropriate contributions in his behalf so that he would receive pension credits for past service; (2) that appellees' promises should be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel; and, (3) that McKay and Brady, acting in their representative capacity, committed fraud in making the foregoing promises with no intent to attempt their fulfillment and with the intent to cause him to rely on these misrepresentations to his detriment. On appellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court held that appellant had filed his action eleven days beyond the applicable six-year statute of limitations. We hold that the statute of limitations had not run on Schmidt's contract and promissory estoppel claims and that the court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing appellant's fraud claim; accordingly, the order of the district court is reversed.