Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William TRAYNOR; Patricia Traynor; Rebecca Traynor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; American General International Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-56535, 09-56596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 7, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Barry Kenneth Rothman, Esquire, Law Offices of Barry K. Rothman, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Keith Edward Butler, Esquire, Michael W. Goodin, G. Brent Sims, Clausen Miller P.C., Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court properly granted Lexington’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs’ action was barred by the limitations period in their insurance contract, and they have not established that a 12-month limitations period is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 690 (2000). The question is whether the limitations period is “reasonable,” Order of United Comm. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608, 67 S.Ct. 1355, 91 L.Ed. 1687 (1947), and numerous California cases confirm that 12 months is. See, e.g., Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pac. Indem. Co., 18 Cal.2d 748, 117 P.2d 669, 672 (1941) (in bank); see also Han v. Mobil Oil Corp., 73 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir.1995) (citing cases).

Because plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred, we need not reach whether they pleaded AIG’s alter ego liability sufficiently, or whether the district court erred in denying defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.