Page 77 - RICHERT VS. SORKIN THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE WEST WING

statemeit of facts, the Opposition notes that in "October, 2fn2, it was repo.ted that Sorkin had admitted that he was in drug rehabilitation at the time. . . . When plaintifls learned of this deception, the instant action was commenced" [Opp. at 7].r
While plaintiffs do not analyze the timeliness issue in any systematic fashion, the dispositive question is when lhe DFR claim accrued. Accrual of a cause of action is a matter of fcdcral law. Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz,23 F.3d 60'7,610 (1't Cir 1994). ln our open ing papers. we outlined the well-developed federal law concerning the accrual ofDFR claims under LMRA
$ 301. The period begins to run "when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that the union has breached its duty of lair represenlation." Fl.onigdh v. Int. Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 671,942F.2d 8U,82'l (2d Cir. 1991); Ghartey t S. John's Queens Ilospitql, 869 F.2d 160, 165 (2d Cir. 1989) (DFR claim challenging conduct of arbitration proceeding accrues when plaintiff learns of adverse decision).
Plaintiffs never discuss Flanigan ot Ghart(ry, and fail to apply the "knew or should havo known" standard govening accrual. The only excuse they gve for thei six-year delay in filing suit is the allegation that they did not learn until November 2002 that Aaron Sorkin was in a drug rehabilitation program at the time of the crcdit arbihation. The point, however, is a non sequitur. Even if we assume the truth ofthe allegation conceming Sorkin's whereabouts, and even if we
I The Opposition is supported by declarations lrom each plaintiff. The Declaration of Kyle Monis recounts the discovery of certain facts conceming Sorkin's "mental condition" during thg credit arbifation upon reading a October 20{11 New yorkTimes Mag.Jzine afiicle, and he attaches a copy of ihe article [Morris Dec. tlf 3 and Ex. A]. Plaintiffs do not address the question of whether their submission of evidence beyond the pleading rcquires that the Court treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Since the Amended Complaint confains the allegation concerning the Neu, York Times Magozine article [Am Comp. tl{ 26, 35], it is appropriale for the Court to consider the article as part of the pleading without converting the motion under Rule 56. The balance of the evidence supplied by plaintilfs in their declarations is immatcrial to Cuild defendants' motion and should be disregarded.
)