N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHIR LEY PIATT; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. THE M ONEY STOR

E; e t a l ., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-55780 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-01291-ODW -PLA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 1, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge . Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of a l l of the ir individual a nd puta tive c la ss c la im s a g a inst De fe nda nts. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUN 12 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.1. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t re s judic ata ba

rre d Pla intiffs’ c la im s re lat e d to the im

prope r c olle c tion of a

ttorne y s ’ fe e s an d

e xpe nse s. “ B a sic princ iple s of re s judic ata . . . a pply ” with e qua l forc e in the c la ss a c t ion c onte xt. C oope r v . Fe d. Re

se rv e Bank

of Ric hmond, 467 U.S. 867, 874 (1984). As to the e le m e nts of re s judic ata , Pla intiffs only c onte st whe t

he r the re is “ an ide n tity

of c la im s” be twe e n the a c tions. Unite d State s v . Liquidators of Europe an Fe d . C re dit Bank , 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). In de te rm i ning whe the r the re is a n ide ntity of c l a im s, c ourts m ost im porta ntly c onside r the fa c tor whe the r the two suits a rise out of “ the sa

m e transa c tiona l nuc le us of fa c t.” Id. at 1151. The“ Fe e -Split C la ss” c la im s in Mazze i v . Mone y Store , Inc . , 288 F.R .D. 45, 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), a nd Pla intiffs’ c la im s re late d to the c o lle c tion of im prope r a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd e xpe n se s arise out of the sam e tra nsa c tiona l nuc l e us of fa c t. In both a c tions, c la ss m e m be rs sought to re c o ve r dam a ge s ba se d on a ttorne y s’ fe e s im

prope rly c ha

rge d to borrowe rs by

the sam e de fe nda

nts unde r the sa

m e or sim ila

r loa n doc um e nts, inc luding on the ba sis that attorne y s’ fe e s we re sha

re d with a non-attorne y

e ntity . B e c a

use the se c la im s are re late d to the sa

m e se t of fa c ts, the y

c o uld ha ve be e n c onve nie ntly

trie d toge the r in the Mazze ia c tion. Se e Int’l Union of Ope rating Eng’rs–Emp’rs C

onstr. Indus. Pe nsion, W

e l fare & Training Tr. Funds v

. K arr , 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th 2C ir. 1993). Thus, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly

found a n ide ntity of c la im s be twe e n Pla i ntiffs’ individual a

nd puta tive c la ss c l a im s re late d to the c o lle c tion of im prope r attorne y s’ fe e s a

nd the jury ve rdic t in Mazze i . 2. Ne ithe r e quita

ble tolling nor a

ny othe r tolling or de la

y e d-a c c rua l the ory save s Pla intiffs’ othe rwise tim e -barre d c la i m s re late d to the pa ym e nt of posta c c e le ra tion la

t e fe e s. 1 First, C a lifornia ’ s e quita ble tolling doc trine is not a va ila ble to toll suc c e ssive c la s s c la im s ba se d on a prior c la ss-a c tion suit. Se eFie rro v . Landry ’s Re

st. Inc . , 244 C a l . R

ptr. 3d 1, 4 (C t. App. 2019). Se c ond, Pla intiffs fa ile d

to a de quat e ly

a l le ge fa c ts to support a

pplic ation of e quita ble tolling to the ir individual late -fe e c la im s. For e quita ble tolling to a

pply , Pla i ntiffs we re re quire d to a lle ge fa c ts showing, in pa rt, the ir “ good fa ith a

nd re a s ona ble c onduc t in filing the

se c ond c la im . ” C

e rv ante s v . C ity of San Die

go , 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th C ir. 1993). Pla intiffs’ c onc lusory a lle gations tha

t the y

“ proc e e de d re a sona

bly and in good faith” by

re ly ing on thepre viously c e rtifie d late -fe e c la s s in Mazze i , a re unde rm ine d by

othe r a lle gations in the

Se c ond

1 Pla intiffs a

rgue for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t it is not a p pa re nt from the fa c e of the c om

p la int tha t the sta tute of lim ita

tions on all of the puta

tive c la ss m e m b e rs c l a im s ha

v e e xpire d. This a

rgum e n t is wa ive d . S

e eRobinson v . Am. HomeMortg. Se rv ic ing, Inc . (In reMortg. Ele c . Re gistration Sy

s., Inc .) , 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th C ir. 2014). 3Am e nde d C om pla int (“ SAC ” ) that show Pla intiffs a re atte m pting to re litiga

te the m e rits of the Mazze i a c tion. Third, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm ine d

tha t Pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to support the a pplic ation of thedisc ove ry rule . The SAC c onta ins no a lle gat ions de m onstra

ting Pla intiffs’ ina

bility to disc ove r the im

prope r fe e s de spite the e x e rc ise of re a sona ble dilige nc e . Se e Fox

v . Ethic o n Endo-Surge ry , Inc . , 110 P.3d 914, 920–21 (C a l. 2005). Fourth, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly de t e rm i ne d

tha t Pla intiffs fa ile d to a de quate ly

a lle ge fa c ts supporting the a pplic ation of e quita

ble e stoppe l. The re are no a lle gat ions in the

SAC ide ntify ing a

ny c onduc t by

De fe nda n ts tha t purporte dly

“ induc e d the [P] la i ntiff[s] to postpone filing thele ga l a c tion until a fte r the sta tute [s] [of lim ita

tion] ha [d] run.” Honig v . S.F. Planning De p’t , 25 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 649, 655 (C t. App. 2005) (c ita tion omitte d). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t Pla intiffs fa i le d to a lle ge suffic i e nt fa c ts to support a pplic ation of thefra

udule nt c o nc e a lm e nt doc t rine . For fraudule nt c onc e a lm e nt to a pply , a pla intiff m

ust a lle ge fa c t s showing, inte r alia ,

“ that the pla intiff wa s not a t fa ult for fa iling to disc o ve r [the fra ud] or ha d no a c tua l or pre sum ptive knowle dge of fa c ts suffic ie nt to put him on inquiry .” Bak

e r v . Be e c h Airc raft C

orp. , 114 C a l. R

ptr. 171, 175 (C t. App. 1974). In doing so, 4Pla i ntiffs we re re quire d (but fa ile d) to a lle g e fa c ts in the ir SAC showing “that[,] in

the e xe rc i se of re a sona

ble dilige nc e [,] the fa c ts c o uld not ha ve be e n disc ove re d at an e a rlie r dat e .” Id. 3. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Pla i ntiffs’ C a lifornia

unfa ir c om pe tition la

w (“ U C L” ) c la im s we re ba rre d by the sta t ute of lim ita

tions. To the e xte nt tha t the M azze ia c tion e q

uita bly tolle d a ny puta tive c la ss m e m

b e r’ s UC L c la im , a ny suc h tolling c e a se d whe n the Mazze ic ourt de c line d to c e rtify the UC L subc la sse s in 2012. Se e Lantzy v . C e nte x Home s , 73 P.3d 517, 523 (C a l. 2003). Thus, Pla intiffs’ UC L c la i m s e xpire d no la te r tha n 2016. Se e C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17208. B e c a

use Pla i ntiffs did not file

the insta nt suit until 2018, Pla

intiffs’ UC L c la i m s a

re tim e ba rre d. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Pla intiffs le ave to am e nd the ir la

te -fe e c la im s whe re Pla intiffs pre viously fa i le d to c ure de fe c ts in the i r c o m pla int, se e N

at’l C ounc il of La Raza v. C

e gav sk e , 800 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th C ir. 2015), a

n d Pla intiffs m a de a strate gic c hoic e not to ra ise the i r the orie s of e quita ble e s toppe l, fra

udule nt c onc e a lm e nt, a

nd the disc ove ry rule prior to filing the i r SAC , se e Ac ri v . Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Ae rospac e W

ork e rs , 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th C ir. 1986). AFFIRM E D. 5