HOWZE v. SECUREPAK (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a claim under the federal Magnusson–Moss Warranty Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Howze’s action because Howze’s claims are time-barred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) (three-year statute of limitations for fraud claim); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four-year statute of limitations for unfair business practices claim); Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285, 292 (2009) (four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty claim under California’s Song-Beverly Act); see also Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 688 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2012) (when a federal statute contains no express limitations period, the court applies the most closely analogous state limitations period).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.