Lansdell v. Aramark Uniform

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 01-60252
Summary Calendar
Civil Docket # 1:98-CV-329-S
_______________________
BILLY LANSDELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, INC., doing business as
Aratex, doing business as Aramark Linen Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
December 7, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The court has carefully reviewed the two issues raised by
appellant Billy Lansdell in his contractual controversy with
Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc.: Whether the district
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
court erroneously excluded evidence of a contract from the jury;
and whether the court erroneously held certain property damage and
theft claims barred by the statute of limitations. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm the judgment.
First, the district court excluded evidence of the
December 17, 1992 “Greenville contract” on the basis of Appellant’s
answers to Requests for Admissions. Appellant concedes that his
counsel erred in admitting that all contracts between the parties
had been produced. Appellant subsequently attempted to introduce
another contract which had not been produced. He never moved to
withdraw or amend the answers to the request for admissions, and
therefore, the answers are conclusive under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
36(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
excluding the evidence.
Second, while Lansdell concedes that the alleged
negligent property damage and theft occurred more than three years
before he filed suit, he contends that Aramark engaged in a
continuing tort or committed acts deserving estoppel to assert the
defense. The district court rejected each of Lansdell’s theories.
The court found that the alleged tortious acts embody clearly
definable, distinct and separate injuries to appellant’s trailers
and thus are not continuing violations. The court also found that
since the ongoing negotiations between Aramark and Lansdell over
these damage claims were not characterized by inequity or fraud,
2
Mississippi law does not permit waiver of the statute of
limitations. Mississippi Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Stringer, 748
So.2d 662, 665 (Miss. 1999). Appellant has furnished us with no
factual or legal basis to disagree with the court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
3