Case Name: Sascha LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-21
Citations: 689 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 16-55494
Parties: Sascha LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Sascha LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55494
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 21, 2017
Sascha Lynch, Pro Se
Alicia Donahue, Esquire, Attorney, Patrick J. Gregory, Attorney, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brian P. Ziska, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sascha Lynch appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her diver sity action alleging claims arising from an intrauterine device. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lynch's action as barred by the statute of limitations because Lynch was on inquiry notice of her injury more than two years before filing this lawsuit. See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 797, 808, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 110 P.3d 914 (2005) (plaintiffs are charged with "presumptive knowledge of an injury if they have information of circumstances to put them on inquiry" (citations omitted and internal quotation marks omitted)); Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383, 398 n.3, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79 (1999) (knowledge of the harm is not required for the claim to accrue).
We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).
Lynch's request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.