Court Opinion

ID: 9956648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 18:00:40.981401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:44.374233
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NITHYA VINAYAGAM,                               No. 23-15307

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05281-TLT

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW F. PIERCE; PIERCE SHEARER
LLP; SCOTT M. BERMAN; THOMAS
MIHILL; JACQUETTA LANNAN; PAUL
M. HELLER; HELLER IMMIGRATION
LAW GROUP; ADAMS LAW OFFICES,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                   Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Nithya Vinayagam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising out of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

a dismissal on the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.

2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Vinayagam’s action as time-barred

because Vinayagam failed to file her action within the applicable statutes of

limitations or establish any basis for tolling. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d)

(three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); id. § 340.6(a) (providing that

legal malpractice claims must be brought within one year after the plaintiff

discovers, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the wrongful

act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, and

setting forth grounds for tolling); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four-year

statute of limitations for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); Rotella v.

Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 555-56 (2000) (explaining that a four-year statute of

limitations applies to a civil RICO claim and discussing the discovery rule); Platt

Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2008)

(discussing discovery rule and principle of fraudulent concealment).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    23-15307