The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-55422•Jason Cabot v. Stephane Combet-Blanc; Paula Abrahimi
12-55422Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 17, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON CABOT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEPHANE COMBET-BLANC; PAULA
ABRAHIMI,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55422
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05728-ODW-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jason Cabot appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
diversity action as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ellis v. San Diego, 176
FILED
MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cabot’s action because Cabot filed suit
after the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 335.1 (two years for “[a]n action for assault, battery, or injury to . . . an
individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another”); § 340 (one year for
defamation and false imprisonment claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabot’s motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 because Cabot failed to establish grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).
Cabot’s argument that the district court should have permitted discovery to
allow him to establish the amount of time, if any, defendants were absent from
California to toll his claims under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 351 is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
12-55422 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.