Smith v. Soros

Second Circuit

Smith v. Soros

111 F. App'x 73

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2004

DocketNo. 03-9341

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 F. App'x 73 (Smith v. Soros) 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

Smith v. Soros, 111 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Polina K. Smith (“Smith”) filed this diversity action in 2002, alleging [74]*74fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement to contract, and “reckless!] and willful!] tortious treatment” by the defendants. In her complaint, Smith alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced her to relocate to the Ukraine to work for the Soros Group by promising her seniority, high level access to Ukranian governmental officials, and other non-salary benefits. She also alleged that the defendants ruined her professional reputation by spreading false information about her work, and that they fraudulently concealed potential work-related dangers from her. In a carefully reasoned unpublished order, the District Court (Koeltl, J.) dismissed all of Smith’s claims as time-barred. See Smith v. Soros, No. 02-4229, 2003 WL 22097990 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.5, 2003).

We agree for substantially the reasons given by the district court that the plaintiffs claims are in fact time-barred.

We have considered all of the plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Polina K. Smith (“Smith”) filed this diversity action in 2002, alleging [74]*74fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement to contract, and “reckless!] and willful!] tortious treatment” by the defendants. In her complaint, Smith alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced her to relocate to the Ukraine to work for the Soros Group by promising her seniority, high level access to Ukranian governmental officials, and other non-salary benefits. She also alleged that the defendants ruined her professional reputation by spreading false information about her work, and that they fraudulently concealed potential work-related dangers from her. In a carefully reasoned unpublished order, the District Court (Koeltl, J.) dismissed all of Smith’s claims as time-barred. See Smith v. Soros, No. 02-4229, 2003 WL 22097990 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.5, 2003).

We agree for substantially the reasons given by the district court that the plaintiffs claims are in fact time-barred.

We have considered all of the plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-soros-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack