1

09-1436-c v J oseph F . Cooper v. PSIGroup, Inc. 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATION TO 7 A SU MMAR

Y ORDE R FILED ON OR AF TE R JAN UA RY 1, 20 07, IS PERMITT ED A ND IS 8 G OV E RN E D BY FE D E R A L R U L E OF A PPE LLATE P R OC E D U R E 3 2. 1 A N D T HIS C OU R T ’S 9 LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 . WHEN CITI NG A SUMM ARY O RDER IN A DOCUM ENT F ILED WITH 10 THI S COURT, A PARTY MUST C I T E EITHER TH E FEDERAL AP P ENDIX OR AN 11 ELECTRONI C DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTA T ION“ S U MMA R Y OR D ER”). A PARTY CITING 12 A S U MMA R

Y OR D E R MUS T SE R

V E A C OPY OF IT ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PR E S E N T E D BY 13 COUNSEL. 14 15 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A p p ea l s fo r the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 16 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the C ity of New York, on the 5 day of th 17 Fe bruar

y , two thousand ten. 18 19 Pr e se nt: 20 J oseph M. McL aug hlin, 21 Pie rr e N. L e va l, 2 2 R i c h ar d C

. W e s l e y, 23 Circuit Judges , 24 25

________________________________________________ 26 27 J oseph F . Cooper, 28 29 Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt, 30 31 v. No. 09-1436 32 33 PSI Group, Inc., Siemens De matic Mail SVC I nc., 34 35 Defendant- Appellee s , 36 37 Siemens Dematic Corp., 38 39 Defendant

. 40 41

________________________________________________-2- 1 F or

Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: J A M ES H. H O WA RD , Phelon, Fitzger ald & Wood, 2 P.C. , M anc he ste r, CT 3 4 F or

De fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e s: J OHN G. S TR ETTON , E dw ar d s A n g e l P a lm er & 5 Dodg e, Stamford, CT, for de fe nd ant- a pp e lle e PSI 6 Group, Inc. 7 8 T H O M A S F. A L L EN , J R ., C ar ri ng ton, Coleman, 9 Sloman & Blumentha l, L .L .P., Dallas, TX 10 (Mar g are t P. Mason, L eC lair Ry an, Ne w Have n, 11 CT, and Rebec ca Visosky , Carring ton, Coleman, 12 Sloman & B lumenthal, L .L .P., Dallas, TX, on the 13 brief ), for de fe nd ant- a

pp e lle e Sie me ns De matic 14 Mail SVC I nc. 15 16

________________________________________________ 17 18 Appea l from the United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut (Br y ant, J. ). 19 20 ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and 21 DE CREED the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRMED in part, V A CATED in part, and 22 RE M AN DE D fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 23 Pla int if

f Jos e phCoo pe r a

pp e a ls f ro m ( 1) the dis tr ic t court ’s June 5, 20 08 or de r gra nti ngin 24 part de fenda

nts’ motion to di smiss, and (2) the di s t ri ct co urt’s Mar ch 23, 2009 orde r g ranting 25 summa

ry jud g me nt t o d e fe nd ants on the re ma ini ngc la ims . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th 26 the under lying f

acts, the pr ocedur al history , and the issues pre sented for revie w. 27 We r e vie w a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f a mot ion to d ism iss de novo , acc epting al l fa ctual 28 allegat i ons in the complaint as true a nd draw ing a ll reasona

ble infer ence s in the plaintiff’s favor. 29 Chambers v. Time W arner, Inc

. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Cir. 2002). We also revie w a dist rict cour t’s 30 g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo

. Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air L ines, Inc. , 239 F.3d 456, 465 ( 2d 31 Cir. 2001). “Summary judgme nt is appropr iate only when there are no g enuine issues of material-3- 1 f a c t an d th e mo v an t is e n ti tl e d to ju d g me n t a s a matt e r o f law.” Id. Whe n ma kin g thi s 2 d e t e r

m i n a t i o n , th e c o urtmu s tv i e w th e e v i d e n c e i n th e l i g h tm o s tf av o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p arty, 3 draw ing a ll reasona ble infer ence s in that party ’s favor. Id. at 465-66. 4 The district court g rante d Siemens’ m otion to dismi ss Cooper’s cla im under the Connec ticut 5 Wage Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72, on the ground that a two- y ear statute of l i mitations applied. 6 That statute of limitations, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-596, provides that “[n]o action for the pay ment of 7 re mun e ratio n f

or e mpl oy me nt payable pe riodically shall be brought but within two y ear s after the 8 rig ht of ac tion accr ues.” Id. (empha sis added). Cooper argues that the district cour t erre d in applying 9 this statute to his claim, which soug ht to recove r unpaid c ommissi ons, beca use those commissions 10 wer e not “pa

y able pe riodically .” 11 We ag ree . Siemens points to no contra ctual provision that specifie s or requires that Cooper’ s 12 c omm iss ion pay

ments b e ma de on

any pe ri od ic sc he du le . T he c on tr a c t a pp e ars to b e sil e nt a s to 13 when Cooper

was e ntitled to rece ive these c ommissi on pay ments. Acc ording ly , the district court 1 4 erre d wh en i t co n cl u d ed th at C o o p er ’s re mun er at i o n wa s “p ay ab l e p er i o d i ca l l y ” an d th at h i s wa ge 15 a c t c la im a g a ins t Sie me ns wa s th e re fo re ba rr e d b y the tw o- y e ar s tatut e of

lim itatio ns . 16 Cooper’s r emaining claims, howeve r, were properly disposed of by the district court. The 17 le tte r a greemen t be tw e e n Co op e r a nd PSI wa s in te g ra

te d o n th e su

bje c t of c omm iss ion s, bo th 18 beca

use they wer e “me ntioned, cover ed, or de alt with in the writing,” Associated Catalog 19 Merc handisers, Inc. v . Chagnon , 210 Conn. 734, 740 (1989) ( internal quotation marks omitted), a nd 20 be c a

us e the le tte r agre e me nt co nta ine d a mer g e r cl a us e , whi c h “ is c on c lus ive e vid e nc e of the pa rt ie s’ 21 intent to cre ate a fully integ rate d ag ree ment,” Alstom Power, Inc. v . Balcke -Durr, Inc

. , 269 Conn. 22 599, 612 (2004). This integ ration bar s Cooper’s a t t em p t t o introduce e vidence of a c onflicting-4- 1 conver sation he had with a PSImanag er pr ior to being hired, a nd thus bars his asser

tion that he 2 should have be en paid commissions “in acc ordanc e with the [Si emens] Employ ment Ag ree ment.” 3 Coo pe r’ s cla ims a g a ins t Sie me ns and PSI ba se d o n a

the or y of un jus t e nr ic hme nt a

re a lso 4 without merit. “[A] n express contrac t betwee n the p a r ti e s p r e c lu d e s r e c og nition of an implied-in-law 5 contra ct g overningthe same subjec t matter,” Meane y v. Connec ticut Hosp. Ass’n, Inc. , 250 Conn. 6 50 0, 51 7 ( 19 99 ) ( int e rnal qu ot ation ma rk s o mitte d) , a

nd thu s p re c lud e s r e c ov e ry fo r u nju st 7 enric hment. Se e Ve rte x , Inc . v. City of W

ate rb ur y , 27 8 Conn. 55 7, 57 4 ( 20 06 ). Coo pe r e nte re d into 8 written employ

ment ag ree ments with both P SIand Siemens, and those a g ree ments addre ssed the 9 su bje c t of c omm iss ion s. Ac c or din g ly , Co op e r c ann ot r e c ov e r o n a the or y of un jus t e nr ic hme nt. 1 0 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n t o f th e d i s tr i c t c o urt i s h e r e b y AF F IRMED in p art , 11 VACATED in part, and RE M AN DE D fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 12 13 FOR THE COURT: 14 CA TH ERI NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK 15 16