Ralph W. Holmin v. TRW, Inc., et als.

SYLLABUS
 

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).

Ralph W. Holmin v. TRW, Inc., et als. (A-12-00)


(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in Judge Lesemann's opinion below.)
 
Argued February 26, 2001 -- Decided May 9, 2001

PER CURIAM

The issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff's cause of action for fraud accrued on the date he received notice of his termination from employment or on the effective date of his discharge.

At some point prior to November 11, 1991, the individual defendants, Carmine Coppola, Ruth E. Miller, and Arther B. Branstine (all upper management personnel with the Customer Service Division (CSD) of TRW), solicited plaintiff, Ralph Holmin, to leave his job with Mitsubishi Bank and come to work for TRW. At that time, they allegedly assured him that his employment would be continuous and terminable only for just and sufficient cause and that if he performed his job duties, he would have a secure future with CSD and TRW. They did not tell Holmin that CSD was having financial difficulty, that it was being considered for sale, and that his intended position would be eliminated within a short time after his employment. Holmin further alleged that during the interview process, he was told that because he was the only person in the department, there was no chance that he could be laid off. In reliance on those representations, Holmin left Mitsubishi and accepted the job with TRW.

By letter dated February 28, 1992, Holmin was advised that his position was being eliminated and that he was being terminated by CSD and TRW effective March 13, 1992. After unsuccessfully pursuing an employee grievance, Holmin filed a complaint on March 11, 1998 - less than six years after his last day of work and the effective date of his discharge, but more than six years after the date of the letter notifying him of the elimination of his position and of his discharge. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Holmin's complaint, which the trial court granted.

On appeal, Holmin maintained that the six-year statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 should be measured from his last day of work rather than from the date of the letter notifying him of his termination. The Appellate Division concluded that the six-year statute of limitations period was to be measured from the date a plaintiff's cause of action accrues and the date on which the right to institute suit first arises. Since Holmin's complaint was grounded in fraud, an essential element of which is resultant damages, the Appellate Division concluded that a cause of action did not accrue until Holmin actually suffered damages. The panel concluded that he did not suffer any damages until his employment ended on March 13, 1992. Thus, the Appellate Division found that Holmin had filed his complaint in a timely manner and reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded it for further proceedings.

HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Lesemann's opinion below. A statutory limitation period in respect of a cause of action does not commence until that cause of action accrues; plaintiff's cause of action based on fraud accrued only when he was damaged by the actual termination of his employment; the six-year statutory period began to run on plaintiff's last day of work, which was the effective date of his discharge.
 
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in this opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A- 12 September Term 2000

RALPH W. HOLMIN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TRW, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

CARMINE COPPOLA, RUTH E. MILLER, ARTHUR B. BRANSTINE and SYNNEX INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendants.
 

Argued February 26, 2001 -- Decided May 9, 2001

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 330 N.J. Super. 30 (2000).

Scott J. Wenner, a member of the New York bar, argued the cause for appellant (Littler Mendelson, attorneys; Mr. Wenner, Stefanie W. Kohen and William P. McLane, on the briefs).

David J. Gruber argued the cause for respondent (Lehman, Lehman & Gruber, attorneys).

Jon W. Green argued the cause for amicus curiae, National Employment Lawyers Association of New Jersey (Deutsch Resnick Green & Gramigna, attorneys).

PER CURIAM

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons

expressed in Judge Lesemann's opinion of the Appellate Division,

reported at 330 N.J. Super. 30 (2000).
 
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA and ZAZZALI join in this opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
 

NO. A-12

SEPTEMBER TERM 2000
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court

RALPH W. HOLMIN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TRW, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

CARMINE COPPOLA, RUTH E.
MILLER, ARTHUR E. BRANSTINE
and SYNNEX INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendants.

DECIDED May 9, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz

PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST
AFFIRM CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ X JUSTICE STEIN X JUSTICE COLEMAN X JUSTICE LONG X JUSTICE VERNIERO X JUSTICE LaVECCHIA X JUSTICE ZAZZALI X TOTALS
7