The Honor able J. Garvan Mur tha, of the United States District Court for the District of * Ver mont, sit ting by

desig nation. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above . ** 10 -14 69 -cv M andari no v . M

andari no e t al

. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I NGS BY S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A D OCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N EL E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 1 At a s t at ed term of the United States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patrick Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New Y ork, on 3 the 31 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. st 4 5 PRES ENT: ROBERT D. SACK, 6 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON

, 7 Circuit Judges , 8 J . GARVAN MURTHA , 9 District Judge. * 10 11 12 PATRI CI A MANDA RI NO, as Per sonal Repre sentative of the Estate of JAMES L . 13 MANDARI

NO, SR., 14 Plaintif f-Appellant , 15 16 -v.- No. 10-1469-c v 17 18 J AMES MANDARI NO, AL EXAND RA PAOL ERCI O, J OHN DO ES 1 THROUGH 5, 19 Defendants-A ppellees .

** 20 21 22 MI CHAEL S. KI MM, Kimm L aw Firm, Eng lewood, Ne w J erse y , for 23 Plaintif f-Appellant . 24 25 SUZ ANNE M. HA L BA RDI ER, Ba rry , McTier

nan & Moore, Ne w 26 York, Ne w York, for Defendants-Appe llees .2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 2 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED . 3 P l a i nt i f

f - A pp e lla nt P a tr ic ia Mand ari no (“ Ap pe lla

nt” ), a s r e pr e se ntativ e of

the e s t a t e o f Ja m e s 4 Mandar ino, Sr. (“Manda rino Sr.”), a

ppeals from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for 5 the Southern Di s t ri ct of Ne w York ( Gore nstein, M.J. ), e nte re d M arc h 3 0, 20 10 , c on c lud ingthat 6 Appellant fa iled to demonstrate a n entitlement to equitable tolling of the stat u t e o f limit ations on 7 a c c ount o f t

he a lle g e d me nta l in c a

pa c ity of Jame s Ma

nd ari no , Sr ., and

dis mis sin g he r c omp la int a s 8 time-barr ed. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly ing fac ts, procedur al history of the 9 case , and issues on appe al. 10 First, Appe llant contends that the dist ri ct co urt err ed in its finding that she did not make a 11 su ff

ic ie nt s ho wi ngthat Ma

nd ari no Sr . wa s me nta lly

inc a pa c itate d b e tw e e n 1 99 5 a nd 20 02 , s uc h a s 12 t o m e r i t e qu i t a

b l e t o l l i n g o f t h e s t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . “ W e r e v i e w a d i s tr i c t c o urt ’ s d e c i s i o nt o d e n y 13 equitable toll ing for abuse of di scre tion.” Zerilli -Edelglass v. N.Y .C. Trans it Auth. , 333 F.3d 74, 81 14 (2d Cir. 2003). Moreove r, “[i] n revie wing district c ourt dec isions for abuse of discretion, we revie w 15 the un de rl yingfa c tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar- e rr or ,” wh ic h “ma

nd a te s that we de fe r t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s 16 fac tual finding s, particular ly those involving

c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n a ti o n s .” Phx . G lob al V

e ntu re s, LLC 17 v. Phx. Hotel Assocs., Ltd. , 422 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2005) . We a re also mindful that “ [w] here there 18 ar e t w o p e r

m i s s i b l e v i e w s o f

t h e e v i d e n c e , th e f

a c t f i n d e r ’ s c h o i c e b e tw e e nth e mc an n o tb e c l e ar l y 19 err oneous.” An de rso n v. City of B esse me r Ci ty , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). On the r ecor d prese nted, 20 we loca

te no error in the di strict court’s w ell rea soned dete rmination that Appellant wa s not entitled 21 to equitable tolling. 22 We a ssume , w ith out de c idi ng , that fe de ra l la w g ov e rn s th e e qu ita

ble tol lin g of

Ap pe lla nt’ s3

1 fede ral c laims and New York state la

w g overns the equitable toll ing of Appellant’s New Yor k state 2 law cla ims, though Appe llant’s claim of e rror fails under

either standa

rd. Unde r fe dera l law, 3 “[e]quit able tolling a pplies only

in the rar e and e x ceptional c ircumstance .” Bertin v. United States , 4 478 F.3d 489, 494 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks o m itted). “As a g ener al matter, a 5 lit ig ant s e e kin g e qu ita ble tol lin g mus t e sta

bli shtw o e le me nts : ‘ (1 ) t hat he ha s b een pu rsuinghis 6 r i g h t s d i l i g e n t l y, an d ( 2 ) th a ts o m e e x t r a o r d i n ar y c i r c u m s t an c e s t o o d

i nh i s w ay an d p r e v e n t e d

t i m e l y 7 filing.’ ” Bolarinwa v. W illiams , 5 9 3 F. 3 d

2 2 6 , 2 3 1 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Lawrence v. F lorida , 549 8 U.S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 6 (2007)) . Whil e mental disability can w arr ant equitable tolling of the statute of 9 limit ations in s o m e circumstances, that de termination “re quires a hig hly case -spec ific inquiry .” 10 Br own v . P ar

k c he ste r S . Co nd os . , 287 F.3d 58, 60 (2d C ir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 S i n ce “m en t al i l l n es s es ar e a s v a r i e d a s p h y s i ca l i l l n es s es , ” w e h av e h el d t h at a l i t i gan ts ee k i n g 12 equitable tolling c annot re ly on “conc lusory and vague cla im[ s],” and must proffer a “pa rticularized 13 d es cripti on of how h[is] condition adver sely aff ecte d h[i s] capacity

to function g ener ally

or i n 14 relationship t o the pursuit of h[is] rig hts.” Boos v. Runy on , 201 F.3d 178, 185 ( 2d Cir. 2000). 15 T h e d i s trict court a cted we ll within i ts discretion in cre diting the testimony of Ge rar d and 16 J oseph Manda

rino, Mandar ino Sr.’s brothers , t wo non-par ty witnesses with extensive interac tion 17 with Ma

ndarino Sr. during the rele vant time pe riod. Moreove r, contra ry to Appellant’s implication, 18 the c ourt

wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to fu lly c re dit —o r tr e a t a s d isp os iti ve —th e te sti mony of the e xpe rt 19 witness. See Fi

sh e r v . V as sa r Co ll. , 70 F.3d 1420, 1447 ( 2d Cir. 1995) (holding that a district cour t, 20 a c t i n g a s f

i n d e r o f f a c t , i s “ u n d e r

n o o b l i g a t i o nt o a c c e p tth e w o r d o f [ ane x p e rtw i tn e s s ] s i m p l y 21 b e c a

u s e [ ] h e h a [ s ] b e e n q

u a l i f i e d a s an e x p e rt ” ) . W e n o t e , f urth e r , th a t e v e n i f th e d i s tr i c tc o urtf u l l y 22 cre dited Dr. Goodma n’s expert repor

ts, those reports did not include any specific conclusion as to4

1 Mandar ino Sr.’s mental functioningor ability to ma nag e his a ffa irs during the re levant time per iod. 2 I n a dd iti on , the re is no ba sis in the re c or d f or de te rm ini ngthat th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to c re dit 3 the testimony

of some witnesses ove r others was clea rly err oneous, or that it err ed in its conclusion 4 that Appellant had failed to make the “ particula rized” showingnece ssary to merit equitable tolling. 5 Cf. Bo lar inw a , 5 9 3 F . 3 d a t2 3 2 ( h o l d i n g , i n th e h a

b e a s c o n t e x t , th a t e qu i t a

b l e t o l l i n g i s j u s t i f

i e d o n l y 6 w h e r e a

l i t i g an tc an“ d e m o n s t r a t e t h a th e r p art i c u l ar

d i s ab i l i ty c o n s t i tu t e d

ane x tr a o r d i n ar

y 7 c ir c ums tanc e se ve re ly imp a ir inghe r a

bil ity to c omp ly wi th the fi lin g de a dli ne , d e sp ite he r d ili g e nt 8 eff orts to do so” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). Acc ording ly , we cannot conc lude that the 9 district court abuse d its discretion in concludi n g that equitable tolling w as not merited a s to 10 Appellant’s f

eder al claims. 11 The same rea soning le ads to the conc lusion that the court did not abuse its discr etion in also 12 denying A

ppellant the benef

it of equitable tolling a s to the New Y ork state law claims. Under

§ 208 13 of the Ne w Yo rk Civ il Pr a c tic e L aw a nd Rul e s, a pla int if f m ay be e nti tle d to e qu ita

ble tol lin g if

that 14 person “ is under a disability beca use of infanc y or i nsanity at the time the ca use of a ction acc rues.” 15 N.Y. C.P.L .R. 208 (McKinney ’s 2010). This tolling, howe ver, is ava ilable “only [t o] t hose 16 individuals who are una ble to protec t their leg al rig hts beca use of a n over- all inabilit y t o function 17 in soc iety .” McCarthy v . Volkswagen of Am., Inc

. , 55 N.Y .2 d 543 , 548 , 450 N. Y. S.2 d 4 57 (1 98 2) ; 18 se e als o F

e rre ira v . M

aim on ide s M e d. Ctr

. , 43 A.D.3d 856, 858, 841 N.Y.S.2d 678 (2d Dep’t 2007) 19 (s ame ). On

the re c or d b e fo re us , th e re is n o q ue sti on that th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt 20 fell fa

r short of demonstrating that Mandar ino Sr. suffer ed fr om an “ove r-a ll inabilit y to function in 21 society”; to the contra ry , the evidenc e demonstrated that, foll owing his overdose, Ma ndarino Sr. sold 22 c ars , r e marr ie d, and le d a n a c tiv e so c ia l li fe . A c c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ou rt di d n ot a bu se its5

1 discretion in re fusing to equitably toll the statute of limit ations as to Appellant’s state law cla ims. 2 Finally , Appellant asse rts that the d i s t ri ct court erre d in permitting Ge rar d and Joseph 3 Mand ari no to t e sti fy a t th e e vid e nti ary

he ari ngre g ard inge qu ita ble tol lin g , d e sp ite the fa c t th a t 4 De fe n d an t s h ad am en d ed t h e J o i n t P re tri al Or d er a fu l l th re e an d a h al f m o n th s p ri o r t o th e h ea ri n g 5 to include them as defe nse wit nesses. Appellant advance s this argument in less than a full pag e of 6 h e r b r i e f

, w i t h o u tc i t a t i o nt o a

s i n g l e s u p p o rt i n g c a s e o r

s t a tu t e , an d

th e r e f o r e w e m i g h tp r o p e r l y 7 consider the ar g ument waived on a ppeal. See Norton v. Sam’ s Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 ( 2d Cir. 8 1998) (“ I ssues not sufficie ntly argued in the brief s are considere d waived a nd normally

will not be 9 addre ssed on appe al.”) . Neve rtheless, it is clear that the ar g ument lacks mer it. 10 We have he ld that Rule 16 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e “w as n o t i n t ended to 11 function as an inflexi ble straig htjacket on the conduct of litigation . . . ; instead, it was intended to 12 insure the e fficie nt resolution of ca ses and, most importantly , to mi n i miz e pre judicial surprise.” 13 Lamborn v. Dittmer , 873 F.2d 522, 5 2 7 (2 d C i r. 1989). Ac cording ly , “[d] istrict courts have 14 c on sid e ra

ble dis c re tio n in

the mana g e me nt o f t

ri a ls, [wh ic h] ne c e ssa

ri ly inc lud e s a

c e rt a in a mou nt 15 of latitude to deviate from the terms of [a] pretria l order,” Manley v. AmBaseCorp. , 337 F.3d 237, 16 249 (2d Cir. 2003), and w e will not locate e rror in suc h a deviation abse nt “serious pre judice” to the 17 complaining party , Cross & Cross Props., L td. v. Eve rett Allied Co. , 886 F.2d 497, 503 ( 2d Cir. 18 1989). This is not a case in which Appellant was prese nted with proposed de fense witnesses on the 19 e ve of

tr ia l; t o th e c on tr a

ry , th e dis tr ic t cou

rt pe rm itt e d the De fe nd ants ’ am e ndme nt o f t he pr e tr ia l 20 order

more than three and a half months prior to the hear ing, and there is simpl y no evidenc e in the 21 rec ord th at Ap p ell ant lacke d notice of the testimony , was una ble to depose G era

rd or Joseph 22 Mandar ino, or was in any manner prejudice d by

the cour t’s decision to permit them to testify .6

1 Acc ording ly , the district court did not abuse its discre tion in thi s reg ard. 2 We are awa re that Appellant moved this Court for oral argument in this case on January 27, 3 2011, the day

prior to the date on which the c ase w as sche duled to be submitted to this panel. 4 Ne ith e r p art

y , h ow e ve r, a

pp e ars to have pr e vio us ly re qu e ste d o ra l argume nt a s r e qu ir e d b y thi s 5 Court’s rules. SeeSe c on d Ci rc uit L oc a l Ru le 34 .1 (“ F a ilure to t ime ly fi le the Or a l A rgume nt 6 Statement For

m [ require d by

this Rul e] signifies that the party does not seek or al ar g ument.”). In 7 any

event, the motion is now moot. 8 We h ave c on sid e re d a ll o f A pp e lla nt’ s r e ma ini ngargume nts and fi nd the m to be wi tho ut 9 m e r i t . F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED . 10 11 F OR TH E CO UR T: 12 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 13 14