Nithya Vinayagam v. Andrew F. Pierce

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NITHYA VINAYAGAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANDREW F. PIERCE; PIERCE SHEARER
LLP; SCOTT M. BERMAN; THOMAS
MIHILL; JACQUETTA LANNAN; PAUL
M. HELLER; HELLER IMMIGRATION
LAW GROUP; ADAMS LAW OFFICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15307
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05281-TLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Nithya Vinayagam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising out of
* 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 2 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15307
prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
a dismissal on the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Vinayagam’s action as time-barred
because Vinayagam failed to file her action within the applicable statutes of
limitations or establish any basis for tolling. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d)
(three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); id. § 340.6(a) (providing that
legal malpractice claims must be brought within one year after the plaintiff
discovers, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the wrongful
act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, and
setting forth grounds for tolling); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four-year
statute of limitations for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); Rotella v.
Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 555-56 (2000) (explaining that a four-year statute of
limitations applies to a civil RICO claim and discussing the discovery rule); Platt
Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2008)
(discussing discovery rule and principle of fraudulent concealment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --