Robert Critchlow v. Kate Critchlow
617 F. App'x 664
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Robert Critchlow sued his stepmother Kate Critchlow and her (now-deceased) attorney John Waner for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion related to the Critchlow Family Trust and Warren Critchlow’s will. Plaintiff later substituted Waner’s wife as defendant on appeal.
- The district court took judicial notice of plaintiff’s November 2008 Safe Harbor Petition filed in Sonoma County Superior Court and attached exhibits.
- The district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as time-barred, concluding each claim was governed by a three-year statute of limitations that began running in November 2008.
- The court found plaintiff had a “suspicion of wrongdoing” in November 2008 based on statements in the Safe Harbor Petition, triggering accrual under California’s discovery rule.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment under Rule 52 and alternatively sought reconsideration; the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate exception bars federal jurisdiction | Claims are not purely probate and therefore federal court may hear them | Probate exception applies to disputes about trust/will administration | Held: Exception does not apply; claims are non‑probate in nature (Marshall controls) |
| Whether judicial notice of Safe Harbor Petition was proper and converted motion to summary judgment | Judicial notice was improper or would convert 12(b)(6) motion | Judicial notice of the petition and exhibits under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) was proper and not for truth of facts | Held: Judicial notice proper; court did not convert motion into summary judgment (Lee; Skilstaf) |
| Whether claims are time‑barred and when statutes began to run | Limitations did not begin until later because no repudiation; claims timely | Claims accrued in Nov 2008 when plaintiff suspected wrongdoing; three‑year limitations bar applies | Held: Accrual began Nov 2008 under discovery rule; claims filed in Mar 2012 were untimely and dismissed (Jolly; Fox; Strasberg) |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to amend judgment/reconsider | Plaintiff requested amendment/reconsideration based on alleged errors | Rule 52 inapplicable; no new facts or clear error to justify reconsideration under Rules 52/59 | Held: Denial affirmed; Rule 52 inapplicable and no basis for reconsideration (Platforms Wireless) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) (limits probate exception to purely probate matters)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for judicial notice without adopting truth of asserted facts)
- Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) (taking judicial notice does not necessarily convert a motion to dismiss into summary judgment)
- Noggle v. Bank of Am., 70 Cal. App. 4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (fiduciary‑duty claim under Probate Code governed by Probate Code limitations)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988) (California discovery rule: suspicion of wrongdoing triggers accrual)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797 (2005) (discussion of accrual under discovery rule)
- Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc., 51 Cal. App. 4th 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (trustee conduct can trigger accrual before formal repudiation)
- SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for Rule 59/reconsideration review and district court discretion)