N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
J . B
. PAINTING AND W ATER PR OOFING, INC ., a

Florida c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. R GB HOLDINGS, LLC , a De la ware lim i te d lia bility c om pa ny , D/B /A J. R a c e nste in C om

pa ny , B io-C le an Produc ts, R obe rt Ha

rborth, a nd Je rry Dava lle De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56235 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-06084-R -PJW
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 M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TR OTT, KLEINFELD, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. This a c tion a

rise s out of JB Pa inting a

nd W ate rproofing, Inc
. ’ s (JB P)
a pplic ation of a

surfa c e -c le aning produc t c a lle d B io-C le an to the windows of a



# FIL ED M AY23 2016 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.se ve nte e n-story building in Orla

ndo, Florida

in 2008, whic h a lle ge dly sc ratc he d the w indows, re quiring JB P to re m e diate the dam a ge at c onside ra ble e xpe nse . On July 13, 2012, JB P file d suit a ga inst RGB Holdings, LLCd/b/a J. R a c e nste in C o., B io-C le a n Produc t s , R obe rt Ha

rborth, a nd Je rry Dava lle (c olle c tive ly , R GB ),
a lle ging twe lve c a

u se s of a c tion unde r C a lifornia , Florida , a nd fe de ra l la

w for bre a c h of wa

rranty , bre a c h o f c ontra c t, ne glige nc e , stric t lia bility , fra ud, a nd inde m nity
. 1 Pursua

nt to R ule 12(b)(6), the distric t c ourt dismisse d with pre judic e the s tat e c a

use s of a c tion (c la im s 3–12), finding the m untim e ly , insuffic ie ntly ple a d, a nd/or pre m ature . The distric t c ourt la te r gra nte d R GB ’ s R

ule 12(c ) m otion for judgm e nt on theple a dings on the fe de ra l c la im s (c la im s 1–2), finding those
c la im s untim e ly . The distric t c ourt a lso de nie d JB P’ s m otion for le ave to file a Se c ond Am e nde d C om

pla int. W e a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m a nd with instruc tions to al low JB P an opportunity to file an am e n de d c om

pla int.

1 JB P’ s First Am e n de d C om p la int a lle ge d c la i m s for: (1) bre a c h of im plie d wa rranty unde r the M a gnuson-M oss W arranty Ac t ; (2) bre a c h of e xpre ss warranty unde r the M a gnuson-M oss W arranty Ac t; (3) im

plie d wa rranty of m e rc ha nta bility unde r Florida

and C a lifornia

la w; (4) im p lie d wa rranty of fitne ss for a p artic ula

r purpose unde r Florida

and C a lifornia

la w; (5) bre a c h of e xpre ss warranty by a ffirm ation, promise , de sc ription, sa m ple unde r Florida

an d C a lifornia la w; (6) stric t lia

bility ; (7) ne g lige nc e , ne g lige nt de sign, ne glige nt fa ilure to wa rn of de fe c ts; (8) bre a c h of im plie d wa rranty (c om m o n la w); (9) fra

ud a nd m isre pre se ntation; (10) De c e ptive and Unfa i r Tra de Pra c tic e s Ac t, Florida Statute § 501.211; (11) bre a c h of c ontra c t; a nd (12) c om

m on la w inde m nity
. 21. JB P c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing C a lifornia ’ s sta tute s of limita

tions to seve ra l of JB P’ s sta te la w c la im s inste a d of Florida la w. W e re vie wde novo, Le de sma v . J ac k Ste w art Produc e

, Inc
. , 816 F.2d 482, 484 (9th C ir. 1987), a

n d a pply the forum

sta te C a lifornia ’ s “ gove rnm e nta l inte re st”
a pproa c h to the c onflic t-of-la

wissue , se e De utsc h v . Turne r C orp. , 324 F.3d 692, 716 (9th C i r. 2003). A true c onflic t of la w e xists in this c a se a s to JB P’ s stric t lia bility , ne glige nc e , a

nd fra ud/m isre pre se ntat ion c la im s (c l a im s 6, 7, 9) be c a use , a s JB P c onc e de s, C a lifornia ’ s thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita tions would ba

r the se c la im s while Florida ’ s four-y e ar statute of lim ita tions m a y not. Se e C a l . C iv. Proc
. C ode § 338; se e also De u tsc h , 324 F.3d a t 716–17. C a lifornia

ha s a m ore substa ntia l inte re st tha

n Florida in the a pplic at ion of its shorte

r lim ita tions pe riod to prote c t the C a lifornia

de fe nda nts from sta le c la im s . Se e id . The re fore , the distric t c o urt did not err in a pply ing C a lifornia

la w. It follows tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d c la i m s 6, 7, a

nd 9 a s ba rre d by the a p plic a ble thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e C a l . C iv. Proc . C ode § 338. JB P c o nc e d e s tha

t the se c la i m s a

re untim e l y unde r C a l ifornia la w e ve n if the c la i m s did not a c c rue until JB P disc ove re d the sc ratc he s. 2. A four-y e ar lim ita

tions pe riod a

pplie s to JB P’ s re m a ining c la im s for bre a c h of wa

rranty , bre a c h o f c ontra c t, a nd inde m nity
. Se e C a l. C om . C ode § 32725(1)–(2); Me x ia v . Rink

e r Boat C o., Inc
. , 174 C a l. App. 4th 1297, 1300–06 (C t. App. 2009); se e also Addisu v
. Fre d Me y e r , Inc
. , 198 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ B e c a

use the re is no spe c ific a lly sta te d or othe rwise re l e va

nt fe de ra l sta

tute of lim ita tions . . . we m

ust utiliz e the m ost a

n a l ogous sta

te sta tute of lim ita

tions.” ). The pa rtie s disputewhe t

he r the wa

rranty and c ontra c t c la im s a c c rue d upon de live ry of B io-C le an or upon JB P’ s disc ove ry of the sc ratc he d windows. Under C a lifornia C om m e rc i a l C ode § 2725(2) a n d fe d e ra l c om

m on la w, a n
a c c rua l-upon-de live ry

rule pre s um

ptive l y a pplie s to JB P’ s wa

rranty an d c ontra c t
c la im s. C a l. C om . C o de § 2725(2); U.C .C . § 2-725; se e O’N e ill v . Unite d

State s , 50 F.3d 677, 684 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The Uniform C om m e rc ia l C ode is a

sourc e of fe de ra l c o m

m on la w .” ); c .f. W

. Re c r e ational Vehic le

s, Inc
. v . Sw ift Adhe

siv e s, Inc ., a Div . of Re ic hhold C

he ms., Inc
. , 23 F.3d 1547, 1559–53 (9th C i r. 1994) (a ddre ssing a

sim i la r W a shington la

w). While C a lifornia

C om m e rc ia l C ode § 2725(2)’ s pla in la

ngua ge m ake s it a

pplic a ble only to wa rranty c la im s, the provision ha s be e n inte rpre t e d to a lso a pply to “ a bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im ba se d sole ly on a bre a c h of wa

rranty .” C

a rdinal He alth 301, Inc . v . Ty c o Ele cs. C orp. , 169 C a l. App. 4th 116, 134–35 (C t. App. 2008). C l a im

11 is suc h

a bre a c h of
c ontra c t c la im . A future -pe rform anc e e xc e ption, under whic h “ the c a use of a c tion
a c c rue s whe n the bre a c h is or should ha ve be e n disc ove re d,” C a l . C om . C ode § 42725(2), a

pplie s only

if: (1) the wa

rranty e xplic i tly e xte n ds to futurepe rform anc e of the goods; a

nd (2) the bre a c h c ould not ha ve be e n disc ove re d be fore pe rform a nc e . S e e K rie ge r v . N ic k Ale x a nde r Imports, Inc
. , 234 C a l. App. 3d 205, 218 (C t. App. 1991). C o urts stric tly c onstrue the se pre re quisite s for the future
pe rform a nc e e x c e ption. Se e

, e .g. , C arrau v . Marv in Lumbe r & C e dar C o. , 93 C a l
. App. 4th 281, 291 (C t. App. 2001). The future -pe rform anc e e xc e ption doe s not a pply to JB P’ s im

plie d wa rranty
c la im s be c a

use im plie d wa rrantie s do not e xplic itly

e xte n d to future pe rform anc e . C ardinal He alth 301 , 169 C a l. App. 4th a t 135; Mac

Donald, 37 F. Supp. 3d a t 1100. B e c a

use JB P ha s not a lle ge d in e ithe r its First Ame nde d C o m pla int or its propose d Se c ond Am e nde d

C om pla i nt tha t R GB ’ s wa

rrantie s e xplic itly e xte nde d to future pe rform anc e of B io-C le an for a de fine d pe riod of tim e , the future
pe rform a nc e e x c e ption doe s not a

pply to JB P’ s e xpre ss wa

rranty c la im s e ithe r. Se e C arrau , 93 C a l. App. 4th a t 292; C ardinal He alth 301 , 169 C a l. App. 4th a t 131. Although the

a c c rua l-upon-de live ry

rule a pplie s , it is subje c t to thedoc trine of c ontinuous ac c rua l , unde r whic h e a c h de live ry of B io-C le an in a

se rie s of orde rs pla c e d by JB P trigge rs its own lim

ita tions pe riod. Se e Alle n v . Similasan C o rp. , 96 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1071 (S.D. C a l. 2015); Ary e h v . C anon Bus. Solutions, Inc
. , 55 C a l. 4th 1185, 1192, 1198 (2013). 5Apply ing the se rule s, we hold tha t JB P’ s wa

rranty an d c ontra c t c la im s a

re tim e ly to the e xte nt tha

t the y re late to B io-C le an orde rs tha t we re de live re d on or
a fte r July 13, 2008, whic h is four y e ars be fore JB P file d suit on July 13, 2012. W e the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of JB P’ s wa rranty and c ontra c t c la im s involving JB P’ s first orde r of B io-C le a n , whic h JB P c onc e de s wa s de live re d during Juneof 2008. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of JB P’ s wa rranty
and c ontra c t c la im s ba se d on subse que nt orde rs of B io-C le an, a s it is dispute d a nd
unc le ar whe n the s e orde rs we re de live re d. 3. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of c la im 10, whic h a sse rts a viola tion of Florida Statute § 501.211, be c a u se JB P wa ive d

this c la i m

by not
a ddre s sing it on a

ppe a l. Se e

, e . g. , C hristian Le

gal Soc ’yv . W

u , 626 F.3d 483, 487–88 (9th C ir. 2010). 4. The distric t c ourt a lso found tha t JB P fa ile d to ple a d a

c o ntra c t c la im (c la im 11). Howe ve r, JB P doe s ple a d a c ontra c t c la im by a lle ging e a c h e le m e nt of
suc h a c l a im : “ (1) a c o ntra c t, (2) pla intiff’ s pe rform anc e or e xc use for nonpe rform anc e , (3) de fe nda nt’ s bre a c h, a

n d (4) da m a ge to pla intiff.” Se e Troyk v . Farme rs Grp., Inc
. , 171 C a l. App. 4th 1305, 1352 (C t. App. 2009). W e note tha t whe the r a c ontra c t wa s form e d tha

t inc lude d a

prom ise tha

t B io-C le an wa s sa fe for windows is a

dispute d que stion of fa c t not fit for re s olution in a m otion to dism

iss. 65. W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of JB P’ s inde m nity c la im (c la im 12) be c a use JB P ha s not a lle g e d tha t it re m e d iat e d the window sc ratc he s pursua nt to a le ga l judgm e nt or se ttle m e nt. Unde r C a lifornia la w , “ [t] he c a

use of
a c tion for e quita

b le inde m nity a c c rue s whe n the inde m

nite e suffe rs a

loss through pa ym e nt of a

n a dve rse judgm e nt or se ttle m e nt.” Sullins v
. Ex x on/Mobil C

orp. , 729 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1139 (N.D. C a l. 2010) (c iting W
. Ste amship Line

s, Inc . v . San Pe dro Pe ninsula Hosp. , 8 C a l . 4th 100, 110 (1994), as modified on de n ial of re h’g (Se pt. 22, 1994)); se e also C ity of San Die

go v . U.S. Gy

psum C o. , 30 C a l . App. 4th 575, 587 (C t. App. 1994). 6. Although, wea ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of se v e ra l of JB P’ s c la im s a s se t forth a

bove , we find tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in dism issing those

c la im s with pre

judic e and de ny ing JB P’ s m o tion for le ave to
am e nd. W

h e re a R ule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss is gra nte d, “ [the ] distric t c ourt should gra

nt le av e to a

m e nd e ve n if no re q

ue st to a m e nd the ple a ding wa s m a de , unle ss it de te rm ine s tha

t the ple a ding c ould not possibly be c ure d by the a lle gation of othe r fa c ts.” Lope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). Give n tha t JB P m a y be a ble to a lle ge fa c ts supporting its inde m nity c la i m an d the tim e line ss of som e o f its c ontra c t a nd wa rranty c la im s, dismi ssa l should ha ve be e n without pre

judic e . 7The distric t c ourt c i te d thre e re a sons for de ny ing JB P’ s m otion to a m e nd: (1) undue de la

y ; (2) futility ; a

nd (3) fa ilure to m e e t a

nd c onfe r. The de la

y justific at ion fa i ls be c a

use JB P wa ite d le s s tha

n thre e m onths from

the distric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l with pre judic e be fore filing them otion to a m e nd a nd R GB ha s not a lle ge d a

ny pre j udic e from

this le ss-tha

n-e xc e ssive de la

y . Se e DC

D Programs, Ltd. v
. Le ighton , 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th C ir. 1987). Thefutility justific ation fa ils be c a use , a s e xpla ine d a

bove , the distric t c ourt e rre d in finding tha

t a ny am e nde d M a g nunson-M oss W arranty Ac t c la im s would beuntim e ly , a nd be c a use JB P’ s
a lle gations suffic e at this stage to de m onstra te that B io-C le an is a

c onsum e r produc t within the

m e aning of theAc t. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 2301(1); 16 C
. F.R . § 700.1(a ). Fina l l y , the “ distric t c ourt’ s re lia nc e on [JB P’ s] fa ilure to m e e t a nd
c onfe r fa lls outside

the supporta

ble ba se s for de ny ing a

m otion to a

m e nd.” Hall v
. Los Ange le

s , 697 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th C ir. 2012). Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt
a buse d its disc re tion in deny ing le ave to a m e nd. 7. In sum , we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of JB P’ s wa

rranty and c ontra c t c la i m s (c la im s 1–5, 8, a n d 11) on sta

tute of lim ita tions grounds. We find tha t a four-y e ar lim ita

tions pe riod a

pplie s to the se c la im s, whic h a c c rue d

upon de l ive ry

of B io-C le a

n. Unde r the doc trine of
c ontinuous ac c rua l, the se c la im s a re tim e ly to the e x te nt tha

t the y c ha lle nge 8de live rie s of B io-C le an te nde re d on or a fte r July 13, 2008. W e a ffirm

the distric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l of JB P’ s stric t lia bility , ne glige nc e , a

n d fra ud c l a im s (c la im s 6, 7,
and 9) a s tim e -barre d. W e find tha t JB P ha s a

b andone d c la i m

10, whic h

a lle ge s a viola tion of Florida Statute § 501.211. W e a ffirm dism issa l of JB P’ s inde m nity
c la im (c la im 12) be c a

use JB P ha s not a lle ge d tha t it re m e diate d the dam a ge d windows pursua

nt to a form a l judgm e nt or se ttle m e nt. W e re v e rse the distric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l with pre judic e and de nia l of le a

ve to a m e nd, a nd re m and with instruc tions tha

t JB P sha ll be give n le ave to a m e nd its c om

pla int c onsiste nt with this de c ision. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D, RE V E RSE D, RE M A NDE D.

9