Kathy Wu v. Sunrider Corporation, 18-55705

Plaintiff Kathy Wu became a Sunrider independent business owner (IBO) in November 2007, purchasing a starter pack; she placed orders on April 1, 2009 and again on May 13, 2014.
Wu sued Sunrider alleging violation of California’s Endless Chain Scheme law (Penal Code §327 & Civ. Code §1689.2), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and unjust enrichment, asserting Sunrider operated a pyramid/endless-chain scheme.
The district court granted summary judgment for Sunrider, ruling Wu’s claims were time‑barred; Wu appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The district court applied California’s “last element accrual” rule and found Wu’s ECL and UCL claims accrued by 2009 at the latest; her unjust enrichment claim accrued by 2014.
The court applied a three‑year statute for the ECL claim (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §338(a)), a four‑year period for the UCL, and a two‑year period for unjust enrichment, concluding Wu’s May 31, 2017 complaint was untimely.
The district court rejected both the discovery‑rule tolling and the continuing‑violations doctrine because Wu had facts before 2017 that would have given rise to a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did Wu's ECL and UCL claims accrue?	Accrual occurred when Wu knew of actionable harm (argued later, around 2014–2017).	Accrual occurred when she became an IBO (2007) or when she placed the 2009 order.	Accrued by 2009 at the latest (last‑element accrual rule).
When did unjust enrichment accrue?	Accrual tied to later purchases (2014) restarting limitations.	Accrued at the time of the later 2014 purchase (or earlier for other claims).	Accrued in 2014 at the latest; claim still time‑barred by filing date.
Which statutes of limitations apply?	N/A (focused on tolling/accual).	ECL is governed by §338(a) (3 years); UCL by §17208 (4 years); unjust enrichment by §339(1) (2 years).	Court applied 3‑year (ECL), 4‑year (UCL), 2‑year (unjust enrichment).
Are discovery rule or continuing‑violations tolling applicable?	Wu: she did not discover her legal claims until 2017 after online research and counsel.	Sunrider: Wu had sufficient earlier information (recruitment pitch, materials, lack of sales) to suspect wrongdoing; no continuing series of small harms.	Both tolling doctrines rejected; reasonable suspicion arose earlier, and no continuing‑violation tolling.

Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., 292 P.3d 871 (Cal. 2013) (adopts last‑element accrual default rule)
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016) (UCL accrual depends on accrual of underlying predicate claim)
Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (discovery rule: plaintiff discovers cause when she suspects factual basis for wrongdoing)
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal. 1988) (once suspicion arises plaintiff must decide to sue or forgo rights)
Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (elements required to invoke discovery rule)
Spellis v. Lawn, 200 Cal.App.3d 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (later purchases based on renewed desire do not restart limitations)
County of San Diego v. Sanfax Corp., 568 P.2d 363 (Cal. 1977) (statutory claims governed by appropriate statutory limitation period)
Winick Corp. v. Gen. Ins. Co., 231 Cal.Rptr. 606 (Ct. App. 1986) (statute‑of‑limitations analysis for claims deriving from statute)