AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, a former employee, resigned from his job on February 15, 2008, with a final payday on February 29, 2008, which was actually paid on March 1, 2008. The case revolves around the Defendants' alleged failure to fully compensate the Plaintiff on his final payday, leading to the Plaintiff's lawsuit claiming unpaid compensation (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendants acknowledged both before and after his resignation that there was outstanding money owed to him. He contended that it was not until May 2010 that Defendants first indicated they might not pay, suggesting that this could toll the statute of limitations or equitably estop Defendants from relying on a statute of limitations defense (para 4).
• Defendants: Moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, arguing that the lawsuit, based on an unwritten contract, was filed beyond the four-year limitations period (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations for a lawsuit based on an unwritten contract (para 3).
• Whether Defendants' acknowledgments of outstanding money owed to Plaintiff and subsequent vague promises to pay could toll the statute of limitations or equitably estop Defendants from relying on a statute of limitations defense (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, thereby dismissing the Plaintiff's lawsuit as barred by the statute of limitations (para 5).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring): The Court conducted a de novo review of the district court's order of summary judgment. It was determined that the applicable statute of limitations for a lawsuit based on an unwritten contract is four years, and the Plaintiff's lawsuit was filed beyond this period, making it barred under Section 37-1-4. The Court found that Defendants' vague promises to pay did not toll the statute of limitations nor equitably estop them from relying on a statute of limitations defense. The Court emphasized that any promise of payment after the breach occurred would not affect the statute of limitations. Additionally, the Court noted that any interest the Plaintiff believed he had in investment properties that had not been sold could have been resolved as part of his lawsuit to determine the appropriate amount of compensation due, had the lawsuit been filed within the limitations period (paras 2-5).