The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for a man who left one business partnership and started another and was later sued, ruling the statute of limitations on the disgruntled partner’s lawsuit had expired on both of his claims.
Victor DiMaggio III and Elias Rosario were business partners in a few different ventures. DiMaggio was the owner of Financial Advantage Corp., where Rosario was director and a shareholder. They formed Schererville Real Estate Holding LLC and Galleria Realty Corp. together as well. They have since had a few differences, and a few legal entanglements.
It isn’t the first time the two have appeared before the Indiana Court of Appeals. In 2008, DiMaggio filed suit against Rosario and Liberty Lakes LLC, a company Rosario started with two others to develop a patch of real estate with the same name. DiMaggio alleged Liberty Lakes usurped a corporate opportunity from Galleria, but the trial court and COA thought differently, granting and affirming summary judgment for Liberty Lakes in 2011.
Then DiMaggio filed an amended motion to the complaint, naming only Rosario and one of Rosario’s business partners. However, the business partner was dismissed from the case by the trial court in another case affirmed by the COA.
DiMaggio later claimed Rosario breached an oral contract between the two regarding the creation of Galleria, which went into debt, but the trial court said DiMaggio’s claim was past the statute of limitations. The COA agreed and said DiMaggio should have known when his complaint expired and did not do anything.
DiMaggio also alleged Rosario broke a fiduciary duty by failing to present the Liberty Lakes real estate to him and Galleria before pursuing it with Liberty Lakes LLC, but this complaint also fell past the two-year statute of limitations and therefore was not enforceable.
The case is Victor J. DiMaggio III v. Elias Rosario, 64A03-1505-PL-466.