585 F. App'x 397
9th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Camille and Joe Alex Zamorano sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986 alleging delays and denials in obtaining a building permit; suit filed February 2012.
- District court dismissed federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as time-barred and remanded remaining state-law claims to state court; Plaintiffs appealed dismissal of federal claims.
- The permit application was approved by May 2009; Plaintiffs were aware of the delays by that time.
- Section 1986 claims are governed by a one-year limitations period; §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 claims borrow California’s two-year statute of limitations.
- Based on accrual when Plaintiffs knew of the injury, the limitations deadlines were May 2010 for § 1981 and May 2011 for the other federal claims; suit filed in 2012, beyond those dates.
- Plaintiffs asserted equitable doctrines (tolling, estoppel, discovery rule) but did not plead facts showing due diligence, excusable delay, or defendant conduct to justify tolling or estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the federal claims accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Accrual should be later (Plaintiffs contend discovery/continuing violation or other delaying effects). | Accrual occurred when Plaintiffs knew of the actual injury — by May 2009 when the permit was approved. | Accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or should know of the actual injury; Plaintiffs knew by May 2009, so claims accrued then. |
| Are the federal claims time-barred? | Plaintiffs argued their claims were timely or tolled. | Defendants argued claims are barred: §1986 (1-year), §§1981/1983/1985 (2-year) — all expired before Feb 2012 filing. | Claims are time-barred: §1986 expired in 2010; other federal claims expired in 2011; suit filed in 2012. |
| Do equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, or the discovery rule save the claims? | Plaintiffs argued equitable doctrines or discovery rule should delay accrual/tolling. | Defendants argued Plaintiffs failed to plead due diligence, excusable delay, or defendant actions necessary for tolling/estoppel; discovery rule already incorporated into accrual analysis. | Equitable tolling and estoppel do not apply (no facts showing due diligence or defendant conduct); discovery rule does not extend accrual because Plaintiffs had discovered the injury by May 2009. |
| Was dismissal proper under Rule 12(b)(6) and is remand of state claims appealable? | Plaintiffs challenged dismissal of federal claims; did not separately challenge remand if dismissal affirmed. | Defendants supported dismissal for failure to state a claim as time-barred. | Dismissal affirmed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim due to statute of limitations; remand issue not separately pressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seven Arts Filmed Entm’t Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for dismissal and statute-of-limitations issues)
- Lukovsky v. City of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.) (accrual for civil-rights claims occurs when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the actual injury)
- Bonneau v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J, 666 F.3d 577 (9th Cir.) (applies Lukovsky accrual rule to § 1983 context)
- Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.) (elements for equitable tolling; plaintiff must plead due diligence or excusable delay)