Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. John Deveney

Fifth Circuit

Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. John Deveney

706 F. App'x 192

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2017

Docket17-30202

StatusUnpublished

This text of 706 F. App'x 192 (Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. John Deveney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. John Deveney, 706 F. App'x 192 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we conclude that the claims appellant asserts against these appellees accrued, under either federal or state law, as early as August 2012 or April 2013, triggering the commencement of the one-year Louisiana prescription period. Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995); Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d 793, 794 (5th Cir. 1989); Zeigler v. Hous. Auth. Of New Orleans, 118 So.3d 442, 452 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013). Appellant’s suit, filed on February 20, 2015, is well outside this period. Further, there was no basis for equitable tolling of prescription because appellees’ actions did not amount to the level of active concealment necessary to implicate the jurisprudential exception, contra non valentem. F.D.I.C. v. Barton, 96 F.3d 128, 135 (5th Cir. 1996) (to suspend the running of the prescriptive period there must be evidence of “fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or concealment by the defendants that led to the plaintiffs failure to file the claim within the statutory period”). These conclusions were well stated in the district court’s opinion, with which we essentially agree. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.'

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we conclude that the claims appellant asserts against these appellees accrued, under either federal or state law, as early as August 2012 or April 2013, triggering the commencement of the one-year Louisiana prescription period. Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995); Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d 793, 794 (5th Cir. 1989); Zeigler v. Hous. Auth. Of New Orleans, 118 So.3d 442, 452 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013). Appellant’s suit, filed on February 20, 2015, is well outside this period. Further, there was no basis for equitable tolling of prescription because appellees’ actions did not amount to the level of active concealment necessary to implicate the jurisprudential exception, contra non valentem. F.D.I.C. v. Barton, 96 F.3d 128, 135 (5th Cir. 1996) (to suspend the running of the prescriptive period there must be evidence of “fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or concealment by the defendants that led to the plaintiffs failure to file the claim within the statutory period”). These conclusions were well stated in the district court’s opinion, with which we essentially agree. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.'

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 F. App'x 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercato-elisio-llc-v-john-deveney-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack