Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01531/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01531-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2015*

Decided August 6, 2015

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐1531

EUGENE D. CHERRY,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

DUKE REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:12‐cv‐982‐RLY‐TAB

Richard L. Young,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Eugene Cherry, a former construction worker, suffered serious injuries when he

fell 32 feet at a job site in 1996, but he did not file this lawsuit (which concerns those in‐

juries) until 2012. Invoking RICO and Indiana common law of fraud, he claims that a

group of entities conspired to prevent him from discovering that his “true” employer

was a company called “Steel Frame Erectors,” and that they perpetrated this fraud in

order to prevent him from filing a tort claim against Duke Realty Investments. But the

district judge correctly concluded that the statute of limitations had expired by 2012.

                                                 

* Oral argument is unnecessary, the briefs and record are sufficient.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-1531 Document: 47 Filed: 08/06/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14‐1531    Page 2

Cherry had alleged in a 2005 suit for negligence against Duke Realty that at the

time of the accident he had been employed by Steel Frame Erectors. The statute of limi‐

tations on his RICO claim was four years, see Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital

Management, LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009), and on his state‐law fraud claim six,

see IND. CODE § 34‐11‐2‐7(4) and each limitations period began to run when Cherry dis‐

covered the alleged fraud. See Jay E. Hayden Foundation v. First Neighbor Bank, N.A., 610

F.3d 382, 386–87 (7th Cir. 2010) (RICO); Landers v. Wabash Center, Inc., 983 N.E.2d 1169,

1172 (Ind. App. 2013) (fraud). The fraud alleged is the concealment of the identity of

Cherry’s true employer. But by 2005 he knew that identity and could not wait seven

years to bring this suit without encountering the bar of the six‐year statute of limita‐

tions.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1531 Document: 47 Filed: 08/06/2015 Pages: 2