MANOR v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Sylvia J. Manor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging breach of contract and fraud claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Manor's action as time-barred because Manor failed to file her action within the applicable statutes of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (four-year statute of limitations for breach of written contract cause of action), § 338(d) (three-year statute of limitations for fraud cause of action); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 110 P.3d 914, 917 (Cal. 2005) (under the delayed discovery rule, cause of action accrues and statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause, unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have revealed a factual basis for [the] cause of action”).

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.