N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ESTHER DE LA FUENTE, on her own be ha lf a nd on be ha lf of A.D., Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OOSEVELT ELEM ENTAR Y SC HOOL DISTR IC T NO. 66, a

politic a l subdivision of the State of Ariz ona ; JEANNE N. KOB A, a n individual; JONATHAN M OORE, a

n individual; FREDDY M ONTOYA, a

n individual ; C YNTHIA B ER NAC KI, an individual, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
and B RENT R

USSELL, a

n individual; KELLY SER

VIC E S, INC
. , a

fore ign c orporation, De fe nda

n ts. No. 19-16509 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-04732-DW L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na 

# FIL ED JUL 14 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.Dom inic La nz a , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 10, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON, D.M . FISHER , *** and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Esthe r De La

Fue nte file d this a c tion for da m a ge s on be ha lf of he r son, A.D., a nd on he r own be h a lf unde r Se c tion 504 of the R e ha bilita tion Ac t, 29 U.S.C . § 794, a nd TitleII of the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t, 42 U.S.C . § 12131 e t se q. She a lle ge d tha t De fe n da n t -Appe lle e s R oose ve lt Ele m e nta ry Sc h o ol Distric t No. 66, e t a l., viola te d the se la

ws by fa iling to im ple m e nt A.D.’ s Se c tion 504 Pla n from M a rc h 2013 to M ay

2015. The distric t
c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt for R oose ve lt ba s e d on the a p plic a ble two-y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions, a n d De La Fue nte a ppe a ls. R e vie wing the de c i sion de novo, Gordon v . C

nty . of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th C ir. 2018), we a ffirm
. De La Fue nte ’ s c a

use of a c tion a c c rue d no la te r tha n June 16, 2015, the

da y she file d a

c om pla int with the

Unite d Stat e s Offic e of C ivil Rights (“ O C R ” )
a lle ging tha

t R oose ve lt fa i le d to im

ple m e nt A.D.’ s Se c tion 504 Pla n from M arc h 2013 to M ay

2015. Se e Stanle

y v . Truste e

s of C al. State Univ
. , 433 F.3d 1129,

* * The pa

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

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

* * * The Honora

ble D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 21136 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t a c a use of a c tion a c c rue d no la te r tha n the date the p la intiff “ file d a

c om pla int a lle ging virtually

ide ntic a l c la i m s” with thesta te boa rd). Although De

La Fue n te c ould ha

ve the n file d a

pa ra lle l c ivil a c tion for dam a ge s in fe de ra l c o urt, she file d he r c om pla int two a

n d a ha lf y e ars late r, on De c e m b e r 21, 2017. B y

the n, the c la im s ha d be c om e sta le
. De La Fue nte is not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling for fra

udule nt c onc e a lm e nt. R oose ve lt’ s a sse rtions de ny i n g the e x iste nc e of A.D.’ s Se c tion 504 Pla n we re not

“ a ffirm ative a c ts of fra

ud or c onc e a lm e nt” tha

t m i sle d De La Fue nte from
re a s ona bly disc o ve ring theinjury

or le ga l wrong. Porte r

v . Spade r , 239 P.3d 743, 747 (Ariz . C t. App. 2010); se e Volk v . D.A. Dav idson &C

o. , 816 F.2d 1406, 1415 (9th C ir. 1987). To the

c ontra ry , R oose ve lt’ s a sse rtions supporte d De La Fue nte ’ s
c la im of injury by c onfirm ing tha

t the Pla n ha d not be e n

im ple m e nte d. M e a nwhile , De La

Fue nte ha d

no re a son to be lie v e R o ose ve lt’ s a sse rtions,
c onside ring she ha d a

writte n c opy

of the Se c tion 504 Pla

n a nd wa s pre se nt whe n

it
wa s de ve lope d. This c a se is not a

na logous to Lasle

y v . He lms , 880 P.2d 1135 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1994), whic h involve d a via ble the ory of e quita ble tolling ba se d on c onstruc tive fraud. He re , c onstruc tive fra ud wa s not e sta

blishe d. C

f. id. at 1137-38. Among othe r things, DeLa Fue nte fa ile d to offe r any a uthority to show tha

t she wa s
3e ntitle d to re l y on R oose ve lt’ s a sse rtions be c a use of a “ fiduc ia

ry or c o nfide ntia l
re lationship”be twe e n the m . Id. at 1138; se e Mc C loud v . Ariz. De

p’t of Pub. Safe ty , 170 P.3d 691, 694 (Ariz . C t. App. 2007) (“ It is the pla intiff’ s burde n to de m onstra

te why he or she is e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling of the

sta tute of lim ita tions.” (c ita

t ion om itte d)). Fina lly , be c a

u se De La Fue n te did not e s ta blish a via ble the ory of fra udule nt
c onc e a l m e nt, a

jury que s tion re ga

rding whe n De La

Fue nte kne w or should ha ve known of the“ fraud” ne ve r arose . Sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r. AFFIRM E D.

4