DEMETRIA DeLARGE v. Walmart Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMETRIA DeLARGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALMART INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-15064
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05019-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Demetria DeLarge appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging claims under California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
* 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
JUN 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15064
Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)); Jones v.
Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal as time-barred and equitable
tolling analysis where relevant facts are undisputed). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed DeLarge’s action as time-barred
because DeLarge failed to file her action within one year of the date of the right-to-
sue notice issued by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing,
and DeLarge failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that equitable tolling
applies. See Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12965(c) (setting forth one-year statute of
limitations for FEHA claims); Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship, 634 F.3d 524,
530 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that in diversity actions, this court applies the
substantive law of the forum state, including the state’s statute of limitations and
tolling rules); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275-77 (9th Cir. 1993)
(stating California’s three-pronged test for equitable tolling and explaining that
dismissal may be appropriate when it is evident from the face of the complaint that
equitable tolling is unavailable as a matter of law).
DeLarge’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 34 and
36) are denied.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --