Case Name: Jason CABOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephane COMBET-BLANC; Paula Abrahimi, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 563 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 12-55422
Parties: Jason CABOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephane COMBET-BLANC; Paula Abrahimi, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
Jason CABOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephane COMBET-BLANC; Paula Abrahimi, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-55422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2014.
Filed March 17, 2014.
Jason Cabot, pro se.
Leslie Richards, Law Offices of Leslie Richards # B, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, 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
Jason Cabot appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his diversity action as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ellis v. San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cabot's action because Cabot filed suit after the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1 (two years for "[a]n action for assault, battery, or injury to . an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another"); § 340 (one year for defamation and false imprisonment claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabot's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 because Cabot failed to establish grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).
Cabot's argument that the district court should have permitted discovery to allow him to establish the amount of time, if any, defendants were absent from California to toll his claims under Cal. Civ.Proc. Code § 351 is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.