Jones v. Shooshan
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26512
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Jones filed a 10-count complaint in 2011 against Hass, Demás, Kinney, Shooshan, Uckert, Spaulding & Slye/Jones Lang LaSalle, and Ashton Park entities arising from a 1999–2004 WMATA redevelopment partnership; plaintiff alleges he contributed environmental work and strategy and was later terminated without compensation.
- The alleged partnership involved a 20% interest for each partner and duties assigned to environmental matters, asset management, legal matters, and financing, with Ashton Park entities formed later but not alleged to be parties to the original arrangement.
- Plaintiff contends that Demás’ December 2003 capital-contribution demand and December 2004 termination letter were pretexts to deny compensation and future profits; plaintiff alleges Demás misled him in March 2005 that the WMATA deal was dead.
- Plaintiff asserts that WMATA ultimately proceeded with the deal in May 2011, and records show WMATA land transfers and a $98 million loan, which allegedly harmed plaintiff’s interests.
- The complaint includes counts for actual and constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and accounting, with only some counts staying viable given limitations, accrual, and who participated.
- The court later narrowed defendants’ responsibilities, dismissing many defendants and most counts, while allowing fraud and fiduciary-duty claims against Demás to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of breach of contract claim | Demas misrepresented in 2005; discovery rule delays accrual | Breach accrued in 2004; discovery rule not applicable | Contract claim time-barred; dismissed |
| Conspiracy and related counts time-bar | Damages from conspiracy began in 2004 | Accrual at the time of injury, 2004 | Conspiracy counts time-barred as to all defendants |
| Breach of fiduciary duty accrual and discovery rule | Discovery rule applies to fiduciary duty | No discovery rule for fiduciary-duty claims under Virginia law | Breach of fiduciary-duty claims against all defendants, except Demás, dismissed; Demás remains for equitable estoppel analysis |
| Fraud claims timeliness and scope | Fraud accrues when mis representations discovered; May 2011 | Fraud accrues at discovery or knowledge of misrepresentation; discovery rule contested | Fraud claims against Demás survive for now; others dismissed; fact questions remain regarding due diligence and discovery |
| Equitable estoppel tolling | Defendants’ concealment/false assurances estop limitations | No affirmative obstructive acts; limited to Demás | Equitable estoppel not applicable to breach of contract; claims dismissed as time-barred; fraud and fiduciary-duty claims against Demás preserved for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (accrual under federal law via discovery rule (contextual relevance))
- Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 838 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1988) (discovery rule for fraud accrual)
- Detrick v. Panalpina, Inc., 108 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 1997) (conspiracy accrual at time of damages)
- Richmond Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 195 Va. 827, 80 S.E.2d 574 (Va. 1954) (statute accrual begins upon injury, not discovery)
- Virginia Military Inst. v. King, 217 Va. 751, 232 S.E.2d 895 (1977) (general accrual rule for causes of action)