NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHREE SHIVA, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITY OF REDDING; DEBRA WRIGHT; JAMES WRIGHT; BRENT WEAVER,

Defendants-Appellees, and BUILDING ADVENTURES, INC.; RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD,

Defendants. No. 22-15395 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00211-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted January 25, 2023 * * San Francisco, California 

# FILED
FEB 6 2023 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Shree Shiva, LLC (Shree Shiva) appeals from the district court’s dism issal without leave to am end of its action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review de novo dism issal of a com

plaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Alpha Venture Capital Partners LP v. Pourhassan , 30 F.4th 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2022). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to am end and we review de novo a district court’s determ ination that further am endm ent would be futile. See Curry v. Yelp Inc. , 875 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2017). 1. As a prelim inary m atter, Appellees urge us to dism iss this appeal due to Shree Shiva’s failure to prepare Excerpts of Record as required by Ninth Circuit Rule 30-1. However, the deficiencies in Shree Shiva’s subm itted Excerpts of Record do not prevent us from ascertaining the relevant facts and law. See Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep’t , 424 F.3d 1027, 1033 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, we decline to dism iss the appeal on this basis. See id. 2. The district court properly dism issed Shree Shiva’s federal claim s under Rule 12(b)(6) because they were barred by the statute of lim itations. Shree Shiva’s claim s accrued at the latest in March 2016, when the receiver took possession and control of the property. See RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle , 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a § 1983 claim accrues “when

2the plaintiffs know or have reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the

action”) (citation om itted). Because the statute of lim itations for § 1983 claim s in California is two years, the statute of lim itations expired before Shree Shiva filed its action in February 2021, as Shree Shiva had reason to know of the injury that was the basis of its action when it lost control of the property. See Mills v. City of Covina , 921 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying California’s two-year statute of lim itations to § 1983 claim s). Nor has Shree Shiva dem onstrated that it is entitled to equitable tolling. 3. The district court properly dism issed Shree Shiva’s state law claim s of conspiracy to com m it fraud and fraud because Shree Shiva failed to com ply with, or plausibly allege that it was excused from , the requirem ents of the California Governm ent Claim s Act. See Gong v. City of Rosemead , 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374 (2014). 4. We are not persuaded by Shree Shiva’s argum ent that the district court dism issed the com

plaint solely because Shree Shiva’s opposition exceeded the district court’s page lim itations. The district court also addressed Shree Shiva’s legal argum ents on the m e rits and concluded that am endm ent would be futile. 5. The district court did not err in finding that am e ndm e nt of Shree Shiva’s com plaint would be futile. See Curry , 875 F.3d at 1228. Shree Shiva has

3not suggested additional facts that could cure the com plaint’s deficiencies with

respect to expiration of the statute of lim itations period or Shree Shiva’s failure to

com ply with the California Governm ent Claim s Act. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to am end. See id. Given our resolution of the issues resolved in the district court, we need not reach the alternative grounds for affirm ance advanced by Appellees. AFFIRMED.

4