Summary
denying claim of estoppel where there could be no reasonable reliance on conflicting statements
Summary of this case from In re Sundale, Ltd.Opinion
No. 08-12097.
April 3, 2009.
Sean P. Sheppard, Sheppard Sheppard, P.A., St. Augustine, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
Helen A. Palladeno, Grant D. Petersen, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoal Stewart, P.C., Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 06-00574 CV-J-25-JRK.
After oral argument and careful consideration, the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed for the reasons fully discussed at oral argument. With respect to plaintiffs equitable estoppel claim, we need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to permit plaintiffs' untimely motion to amend, because we agree with the district court that, in light of the language of the Medical Plan, the Separation Plan and the June 11, 2001 COBRA Enrollment Notice, there could be no reasonable reliance by plaintiff on the June 18, 2001 COBRA Confirmation of Enrollment or on the several conflicting oral statements.
AFFIRMED.