Case ID: f-appx_23/html/0808-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard MACK; Dawn Mack, a married couple, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frank HUGHES; Susan Hughes; County of Graham, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-15593.
    D.C. No. CV-99-00204-ACM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 12, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 19, 2001.
    
      Before PREGERSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Charles Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Mack (“Mack”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Arizona’s general defamation rule provides that a defamation action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication. Boatman v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc., 168 Ariz. 207, 812 P.2d 1025, 1031 (1990). Arizona applies the discovery rule if “the alleged defamatory statements are published under circumstances in which they are likely to be kept secret from the injured party for a considerable time.” Clark v. Airesearch Mfg. Co. of Ariz., Inc., 138 Ariz. 240, 673 P.2d 984, 986 (1983). Mack has failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the allegedly defamatory statements were made in a secretive or confidential manner. Accordingly, Arizona’s discovery rule does not apply, and the district court properly granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.