Serrano v. USA United Transit Bus Inc.

Second Circuit

Serrano v. USA United Transit Bus Inc.

402 F. App'x 574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

Docket09-5032-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 402 F. App'x 574 (Serrano v. USA United Transit Bus Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Serrano v. USA United Transit Bus Inc., 402 F. App'x 574 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Jose Serrano and Luis Beni-quez, pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment granting the Defendants’ Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss their complaint, which alleged a hybrid § 301 (of the Labor Management Relations Act)/fair representation claim. See 29 U.S.C. § 185; DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The district court denied Plaintiffs’ request for equitable tolling of the limitations period, and dismissed the claims as untimely filed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). We review a district court’s denial of equitable tolling for abuse of discretion. See Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 81 (2d Cir.2003). Hybrid § 301/fair represen *576 tation claims have a six-month statute of limitations. See Carrion v. Enter. Ass’n., Metal Trades Branch Local Union 638, 227 F.3d 29, 33-34 (2d Cir.2000) (citing DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly-determined that Serrano and Beniquez filed their complaint well after the expiration of the six-month statute of limitations. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellants did not establish the “reasonable diligence” and “extraordinary” circumstances necessary for equitable tolling. See Zerilli-Edelglass, 333 F.3d at 80-81. Appellants’ letter to the Department of Labor on April 14, 2008, shows awareness of the facts that gave rise to their claim more than a year before the present action was filed. Moreover, they do not explain how Serrano’s mental illness stood in the way of his ability to comply with the limitations period; their participation in other litigation during the same time period belies any such inhibition.

We have considered all of the remaining arguments on appeal and found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Jose Serrano and Luis Beni-quez, pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment granting the Defendants’ Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss their complaint, which alleged a hybrid § 301 (of the Labor Management Relations Act)/fair representation claim. See 29 U.S.C. § 185; DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The district court denied Plaintiffs’ request for equitable tolling of the limitations period, and dismissed the claims as untimely filed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). We review a district court’s denial of equitable tolling for abuse of discretion. See Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 81 (2d Cir.2003). Hybrid § 301/fair represen *576 tation claims have a six-month statute of limitations. See Carrion v. Enter. Ass’n., Metal Trades Branch Local Union 638, 227 F.3d 29, 33-34 (2d Cir.2000) (citing DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court correctly-determined that Serrano and Beniquez filed their complaint well after the expiration of the six-month statute of limitations. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellants did not establish the “reasonable diligence” and “extraordinary” circumstances necessary for equitable tolling. See Zerilli-Edelglass, 333 F.3d at 80-81. Appellants’ letter to the Department of Labor on April 14, 2008, shows awareness of the facts that gave rise to their claim more than a year before the present action was filed. Moreover, they do not explain how Serrano’s mental illness stood in the way of his ability to comply with the limitations period; their participation in other litigation during the same time period belies any such inhibition.

We have considered all of the remaining arguments on appeal and found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serrano-v-usa-united-transit-bus-inc-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack