Morales-De-Jesus v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co ( 2010 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 09-2156
JOSÉ MORALES-DE JESÚS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Leval,* and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Raymond L. Sánchez-Maceira, on brief, for appellant.
Frank Gotay-Barquet and Gotay & Pérez, P.S.C., on brief, for
appellee.
December 22, 2010
*
Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. Appellant José Morales-de Jesús ("Morales-de
Jesús") filed a complaint against Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company ("MetLife"), the administrator of his employer's long term
disability pension plan (the "Plan"), for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Morales-de Jesús filed his claim after the
three-year contractual limitations period provided for under the
Plan had expired. He now appeals the district court's decision to
dismiss his claims with prejudice based on the magistrate judge's
recommendation concluding that the claims were time barred.
Morales-de Jesús argues that the district court erred by
not applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude
MetLife's reliance on its untimeliness defense. To establish that
the court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the
party asserting the estoppel must show: 1) the party to be estopped
from asserting an untimeliness defense knew the facts; 2) the party
to be estopped intended that his conduct be acted on or acted in a
way that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it
was so intended; 3) the party requesting the application of
estoppel was ignorant of the true facts; and 4) the party
requesting the application of estoppel relied on the other party's
conduct to his detriment. Vistamar, Inc. v. Fagundo-Fagundo, 430
F.3d 66, 73 (1st Cir. 2005). We adopt the reasoning of the
district court, which adopted the persuasive reasoning of the
-2-
magistrate judge, to the extent it concluded that Morales-de Jesús
failed to establish the elements required for the application of
equitable estoppel.
After a careful review of the record and the parties'
briefs, we conclude that "no substantial question is presented."
1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). We therefore affirm the judgment of the
district court.
Affirmed.
-3-