N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARK GLENN GR OC E, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. THEODOR

E B ER NARD C LAUDAT, DB A Qua l ity

Insta nt Printing, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-55960 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-01630-B TM W M C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry T. M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. M ark Gle nn Groc e a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his wage -and-hour a c tion a lle g ing fe de ra l and sta te la w c la im s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u

n d e r 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re vie w de novo sum m a ry judgm e nt, 

# F IL ED MAR 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).J

one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd re vie w for an a

buse of disc re tion thede c ision whe the r to a pply e quita ble tolling or e quita

ble e stoppe l, Le ong v . Potte r , 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C ir. 2003). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t a ll of Groc e ’ s c la i m s, with the e xc e ption of his Unfa

ir C o m pe t ition La

w (“ U C L ” ) c la im

ba se d on his la st we e k of e m ploy m e nt, we re tim e -barre d be c a use Groc e wa s not inc a

rc e rate d whe n his c la im s a c c rue d. Se e C a l. C i v. Proc . C ode § 352.1(a) (re quire m e n ts for sta tutory tolling due

to inc arc e ra tion). His c la im s we re ine l igiblefor e quita ble tolling be c a use he fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he e xe rc ise d the re quisitedue dilige nc e or that he a c te d re a s ona

bly and in good faith in a

tte m pting to bring his c la im s. Se e C e rv ante s v . C o untryw ide HomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th C ir. 2011) (fe de ra l sta

nda rd for e quita

b l e tolling); M

c Donald v . Ante lopeValle

y C mty . C oll. Dist. , 194 P.3d 1026, 1033 (C a l . 2008) (C a lifornia sta nda rd for e quita

ble tolling). C la udat wa s not e quita

bly e s toppe d from

ra ising thesta

tute of lim ita

tions de fe nse be c a use Groc e did not re a s ona bly re l y upon C la

u dat’ s c o nduc t in fa iling to raise his c la i m s e arlie r. Se e N

aton v . Bank

of C al. , 649 F.2d 691, 696 (9th C ir. 1981) (fe de ra l sta

nda rd for e quita

b l e e stoppe l); Hone

y w e ll v . W

ork e rs’ C o m p. Appe als Bd. , 105 P.3d 544, 550 (C a l. 2005) (C a lifornia sta nda rd for e quita

ble e stoppe l).

1 3 - 5 5 9 6 0 2Thus, Groc e ’ s c la i m s we re untim e ly e xc e pt a s to his UC L c la im for the a bove re fe re n c e d one -we e k pe riod. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Groc e ’ s surviving UC L c la i m be c a use the c o urt we i ghe d the e quitie s and c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Groc e owe d C la

udat re im burse m e nt for pa

y a dva nc e s. Se e C orte z v . Purolator Air Filtration Prods. C o. , 999 P.2d 706, 717 (C a l. 2000) (c ourts ha ve ve ry broa d disc re tion in fa shioning re m e d ie s for UC L viola tions); C e nte nnial Ins. C

o. v . U.S. Fire

Ins. C o. , 105 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 559, 561-62 (C t. App. 2001) (a grant or de nia l of sum

m ary judgm e nt tha

t re q uire s the lowe r c ourt to e xe rc ise its disc re t ion is re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re tion). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 9 6 0 3