Sascha Lynch v. Pfizer, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SASCHA LYNCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55494
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09518-R-RAO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sascha Lynch appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
diversity action alleging claims arising from an intrauterine device. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
of the applicable statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55494
Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lynch’s action as barred by the statute
of limitations because Lynch was on inquiry notice of her injury more than two
years before filing this lawsuit. See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th
797, 808 (2005) (plaintiffs are charged with “presumptive knowledge of an injury
if they have information of circumstances to put them on inquiry” (citations
omitted and internal quotation marks omitted)); Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th
383, 398 n.3 (1999) (knowledge of the harm is not required for the claim to
accrue).
We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See
Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).
Lynch’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --