Cluster 8442058

E.g., Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 , 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[A] statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.”).

See Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Brothers, 774 F.3d 791 , 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Although the statute of limitations is 14 ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer, a statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.”).

See Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 , 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Although the statute of limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer, a statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.”).

See Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 , 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[A] statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.”).

Gerena v. Korb, 617 F.3d 197, 201 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 , 798 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[A] statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint”).

Second, equitable estoppel ap- plies only in those cases “where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant’s conduct caused him to delay in bringing his lawsuit.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Cerbone v. Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 768 F.2d 45 , 49–50 (2d Cir. 1985)).

Because we conclude that the claims are timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling, we do not reach the issue of whether they are also timely under the related, but distinct, doctrine of the federal rule of discovery. 6 6 While "[t]he distinction between equitable tolling and the diligence-discovery rule has not always been clear in our caselaw," we see the difference as follows: the discovery rule "delays the date of accrual" whereas "the doctrine of equitable tolling a…

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (citations & quotations omitted).

We proceed to do just that. 27 23-394-cv(L) Moreira et al. v. Société Générale et al. once “the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief,” id. at 504–05 (citation omitted), and may be tolled “as a matter of fairness” where the plaintiff “pursu[ed] [his or her] rights diligently” but was thwarted from “bringing a lawsuit” by “some extraordinary circumstance,” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omi…

The discovery rule has the effect of “delay[ing] the date of accrual [of a cause of action] where the plaintiff is blamelessly ignorant of the existence or cause of his injury.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Mar. 6, 2018) (“At the pleading stage, however, dismissal of the § 1589 and § 1590 claims is not warranted because it is not clear from the face of the Complaint that equitable tolling does not apply.”) (citing Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 800 (2d Cir. 2014)).

As a preliminary matter, “[a]lthough the statute of limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer, a statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, n.12 (2d Cir. 2014).

New York law will deny a defendant the benefit of a statute of limitations defense where the defendant’s affirmative wrongdoing produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding.” Myers Indus., 171 F. Supp. 3d at 118 (citing Putter, 7 N.Y.3d at 552). �us, “[e]quitable estoppel applies in cases where, for example, the defendant lulls the plaintiff into not filing suit with assurances that she will settle the case.” …

“The doctrine of equitable tolling applies after the claim has already accrued, suspending the statute of limitations ‘to prevent unfairness to a diligent plaintiff.’” Ellul v. Con- gregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Haekal v. Refco, Inc., 198 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1999)) (cleaned up).

The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is applied only in “rare and exceptional circumstances[.]” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Kyszenia v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 350 , 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (same). “[L]ike a claim for fraud, a claim of fraudulent concealment must be [pleaded] with particularity, in accordance with the heightened pleading standards of Fed.

In New York, equitable estoppel may be “invoked in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of [her] cause of action but the defendant’s conduct caused him to delay in bringing [her] suit.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Cerbone v. Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 768 F.2d 45 , 49–50 (2d Cir. 1985)); see also MRE Tech.

Aug. 17, 2015) (“[T]he diligence-discovery rule delays the date of accrual . . . .” (citing Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014)); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1385 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[T]he accrual date is not the date on which the wrong that injures the plaintiff occurs, but the date on which the plaintiff discovers that he or she has been injured.” (citation omitted)); Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.…

To the extent plaintiff’s objection may be read to sound in equitable tolling—the argument he did raise before Judge Scanlon—plaintiff has made no argument explaining why Judge Scanlon erred in finding that, since plaintiff had notice of the alleged fraudulent scheme as early as 2009, when he filed his first suit in state court, this was not one of the “rare and exceptional circumstances” in which equitable tolling of the limitations periods—by more than a decade for some of…

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 798 (2d Cir. 2014).

Conn. 2015) (quoting Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014). “‘To invoke equitable estoppel, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant made a definite misrepresentation of fact, and had reason to believe that the plaintiff would rely on it; and (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that misrepresentation to his detriment.’” Id. at 435-36 (quoting Ellul, 774 F.3d at 802 ).

“Equitable estoppel applies in cases where, for example, the defendant lulls the plaintiff into not filing suit with assurances that she will settle the case.” Ellul, 774 F.3d at 802 (citation omitted).

We clarify that equitable estoppel is ―invoked in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant‘s conduct caused him to delay in bringing [suit],‖ and equitable discovery is ―invoked in cases where the plaintiff is ignorant of his cause of action because of the defendant‘s fraudulent concealment.‖3 Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).4 3 The equitable discovery doctrine may b…

“To invoke equitable estoppel, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant made a definite misrepresentation of fact, and had reason to believe that the plaintiff would rely on it; and (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that misrepresentation to his detriment.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“Equitable estoppel applies in cases where, for example, the defendant lulls the plaintiff into not filing suit with assurances that she will settle the case.” Ellul, 774 F.3d at 802 (citation omitted).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

“We may affirm on any ground that finds support in the record, regardless of the grounds upon which the district court relied.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Brothers, 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

“We may affirm on any ground that finds support in the record, regardless of the grounds upon which the district court relied.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

“To qualify for equitable tolling, a plaintiff must show that some extraordinary circumstance, such as fraudulent concealment of the cause of action, stood in the way of bringing suit and that she had been pursuing her rights diligently.” Id. (citing Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014)).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Brothers, 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Phillips v. Generations Family Health Ctr., 723 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2013)).

“To invoke equitable estoppel, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant made a definite misrepresentation of fact, and had reason to believe that the plaintiff would rely on it; and (2) the plaintiff reasonably relied on that misrepresentation to h[er] detriment.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appx. 58 , 60 (2d Cir. 2019) (“To qualify for equitable tolling, a plaintiff must show that some extraordinary circumstance, such as fraudulent concealment, stood in the way of bringing suit and that he had been pursuing his rights diligently”) (citing Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014)).4 ‘If the history of this litigation makes anything clear, it is that defendants rarely if ever changed their behavior concerning plaintiffs’ benefits…

For Plaintiff’s claims to be considered timely under the discovery rule, he must show that he could not have discovered his injury – that is, that he had been infected with tuberculosis bacteria – until December 2016, Cf. Ellul v. Congreg. of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (the discovery rule delays the date of accrual where the plaintiff is “is blamelessly ignorant of the existence or cause of his injury”).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014).

See Gabelli, 568 U.S. at 449 , 133 S. Ct. at 1221 ; Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, 406 F.3d 434, 444 (7th Cir. 2005); Ellul v. Congrega- tion of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 799, 801 (2d Cir. 2014).

See Gabelli, 568 U.S. at 449 , 133 S. Ct. at 1221 ; Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, 406 F.3d 434, 444 (7th Cir. 2005); Ellul v. Congrega- tion of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 799, 801 (2d Cir. 2014).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014).

Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Phillips v. Generations Family Health Ctr., 723 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2013)).

In Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Brothers, 774 F.3d 791 (2d Cir. 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied the discovery rule to an ATS claim, stating, “plaintiffs must demonstrate that they did not discover their cause of action—and could not have discovered it with due diligence—until less than ten years before bringing suit.” Id. at 799 (emphasis added); see also Lampert v. Norfolk & W.

We review dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims de novo, “accepting all factual allegations in [plaintiffs’] complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 2 We review dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims de novo, “accepting all factual allegations in [plaintiffs’] complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

“We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

We review a judgment of dismissal de novo, “accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

Neither a plaintiffs reliance on an erroneous district court decision that is contrary to established Second Circuit law nor a plaintiffs misreading of a sound district court decision would constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” that “stood in the way of his bringing a lawsuit.” See Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 801 (2d Cir. 2014) (brackets omitted and internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Vill. of Freeport v. Barrella, 814 F.3d 594 , 609 n.59 …

We review a judgment of dismissal de novo, “accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir. 2014).

We review a judgment of dismissal de novo, “accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir.2014).

First, “[w]e review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 796 (2d Cir.2014).

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense. “ ‘Unlike equitable tolling, which is invoked in cases where the plaintiff is ignorant of his cause of action because of the defendant’s fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel is invoked in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant’s conduct caused him to delay bringing his lawsuit.’ ” Ellul v. Congregation of Christ…

“Unlike equitable tolling, which is invoked in cases where the plaintiff is ignorant of his cause of action because of the defendant’s fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel is invoked in cases where the plaintiff knew of the existence of his cause of action but the defendant’s conduct caused him to delay in bringing his lawsuit.” Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791, 802 (2d Cir.2014) (quotation marks omitted).

“To qualify for equitable tolling, a plaintiff must show (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in the way of his bringing a lawsuit.” Ellul, 774 F.3d at 801 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 642 (2d Cir.2007) (“Under New York law, the doctrines of equitable tolling or equitable estoppel may be invoked to defeat a statute of limitations defense when the plainti…