Venditto v. Cunningham
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
A. Statute of Limitations
Defendant argues that plaintiff's fraud claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations because they accrued in 2012, when plaintiff stopped receiving interest payments from the business. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A. In the light most favorable to plaintiff, however, notice of reduced income stream despite defendant's best efforts, as plaintiff alleges he assumed in 2012, is not commensurate with notice of defendant's self-interested undermining of that income stream, as plaintiff alleges he discovered only upon the sale of the business in August 2016.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boyle v. Hasbro, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Coll v. PB Diagnostic Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Pollock v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Armstrong v. Rohm and Haas Co., Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- Stevens v. ThackerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.