Last week, a Los Angeles judge dismissed Kevin Costner's second try at pursuing Morgan Creek Productions, claiming that they fraudulently concealed the profits he was entitled to from the movie in which he starred, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."
The reason that the Court dismissed his claims?
Because Costner's fraud claims arose solely out of the parties' agreement regarding revenue sharing.
Naturally, that begs the question: So why didn't Costner simply sue Morgan Creek for breach of contract?
Although I haven't read the pleadings, here's a fairly safe guess: Costner's time to bring a breach of contract action has probably already passed; California only allows you 4 years to commence a breach of contract action. (New York, on the other hand, generally allows you 6 years to bring a breach of contract action.)
The statute of limitations for California-based fraud claims, on the other hand, may (in some circumstances) be tolled when the fraud was long-running and concealed from the plaintiff.