sorry yes mr via any brought this case because he would it was denied the benefits of a jointly trustee taft hartley health benefit plan it minister by a trustees appointed by the union and by  a group of employers he was the plan provides for benefits for employees of employers who have a collective bargaining agreement with the union and are covered by that collective bargaining agreement was denied the benefits he sought because it was determined that he was not covered by that collective bargaining agreement he contends that the decision that he wasn't covered was wrong that the union should have taken another position that the phone should have decided he was covered in that she did he should have gotten those benefits in the alternative the argues that it was unlawful for the union and the employer to exclude him from coverage of the agreement the subject of his coverage by the collective bargaining agreement was itself the subject of an arbitration brought by the health fund in two thousand and nine that resulted in an arbitration award in two thousand and ten in which the arbitrator held that mr vii's position was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement the fund had notified mr fani in advance of the arbitration invited him to this action until first march of two thousand and sixteen but when he filed it he included no substantive allegations of fact and if his claim was a mended in july of two thousand and sixteen more than six years after this particular war that he was notified of a more procedural question so judge conal yes entertain a motion to dismiss but then he also converted into a motion for summary judgment as your other and was that necessary well your honor it was not necessary to the union's motion to dismiss nor to the employer's notes and dismiss and we did not seek to add anything to the record to his decision with respect to the union and the employer was based entirely on the documents that were submitted by mr vireo on himself the complaint the allegations of the complaint in the attachments to it but what you were relying on were from raising the issue of whether he was covered by a collective the collective bargaining agreement that kind of non party issue preclusion is an exception to the rule but he found that the fund occupied  collaterally stopped every single claim that mr vanier asserts here is clearly barred by the statute of limitations all of the facts that underlie his claims were well known to him in march of two thousand and ten at the latest statue in titian's he claims that the union was involved in a civil rico conspiracy that's subject to a four year statute titian's every single one of these is time barred that's all apparent from the face of it from the face of the complaint the complaint it goes on for seventy five pages it includes all of these since including allegations of when he learned of the of the facts he's complaining of in the particular documents he attaches to quick points i know i'm at my time i'm sorry judge the statute of limitations is not told simply because mr persists in asking again and again and again for the same relief that he was denied by the discrete acts before march of two thousand and ten and secondly the fact that the harm he feels of not being covered by these health benefit plans continues does not make the claim a continuing violation when it's the product of a single discrete or discreet x way back when thank you are now here for our representatives for actor figaro upon in a sixth circuit court since then the sixth circuit has chosen to remain with the standard and i can point to a case that says that ohio execution protocol eight sixty  eight eighty one so in that context i would point to the context of whether or not this court may address equitably tolling the statute of limitations i counsel for the union has set forth his argument that everything is told in review of the complaint in all the attachments to the complaint establishes that every cause of action is told and now the question remains as to whether or not the co t can review and what standard of review the court should give to judge colton's decision it is opposition that this stand that the tolling of the statute of limitations is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as set forth in jenkins v green six thirty third to ninety eight there are exceptions and what that comes down to is extraordinary situations which new york court of appeals has defined as including fraud misrepresentation of law deception and in this case i don't think you can find or even find a hint when anybody has engaged in a fraud misrepresentation of deception especially the concluded that equitable tolling would would apply to a situation with the funds specifically did not comply with the statutory notice obligation obviously that has no application here and  also have a situation where  court would even address the concept of equitably tolling the statute of limitation in absolutely no diligence he sat on his rights since two thousand and three when he was hired since two thousand and eight when he was specifically good morning may please the court my name is meredith couple our o and we represent the employer defendants many of the arguments mirror that which has been sad to so in the entrance of being brief i think the claims asserted against the employer are largely rooted in discrimination and fraud claims based on alleged improper exclusion from the union and as we've heard the lower court appropriately held that those the exclusion claim was decided already by the arbitration and even if it had not been all of the claims grounded in fraud and discrimination are barred by the statute of limitations  claims for race discrimination under nine hundred eighty one the last allegation of any sort of purported discriminatory conduct is over four years prior to the filing of the complaint irrespective of when you consider the complaint filed when it was originally filed or when it was amended similarly any claims for fraud based on conduct at the arbitration first off the fraud claim doesn't claim that there was any misrepresentation made to bayani that which would support a fraud claim but even if it had those claims are barred no matter how you look at the fraud claim based on the statute of limitations course thank you very much will reserve