Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): which began to run on the date the cause of action accrued, not on the date of discovery.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Surgical Tech., Inc., 285 F.3d 848, 857 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17208). Similarly, under the CLRA, the limitations period begins to run on the date the improper consumer practice was committed. Cal. Civ.Code § 1783. The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations for CLRA claims, however. See Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 733 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1141 (C.D.Cal.2010); Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products Inc., No. C 08-00836 CW, 2009 WL 2905960, *3 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2009). Florida applies the more straightforward rule that the cause of action accrues on the date of sale. See S. Motor Co. v. Doktorczyk, 957 So.2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. App.2007) (<HOLDING>). New York’s consumer fraud law applies the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale (B) holding that the plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date of the repealer statute not on the date the wrong occurred despite the federal courts ruling as to the statutes unconstitutionality (C) holding that the payments accrued (D) holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure (E) recognizing the cause of action
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date of the repealer statute not on the date the wrong occurred despite the federal courts ruling as to the statutes unconstitutionality