Mike M. Madani; v. Shell Oil Company;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the***
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKE M. MADANI; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56332
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01283-GHK-
JWJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2009**
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMPSON and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, ***
District Judge.
FILED
DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their antitrust action as
barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, review de novo, Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1135 (9th Cir.
2008), and affirm.
The district court correctly ruled that the limitations period for this class
action was not tolled by a prior class action. Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213,
214 (9th Cir. 1987). Nor does Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139 (9th
Cir. 2002) (en banc), compel a different result. None of the peculiar reasons
justifying tolling in that case is present in this case. Id. at 1147-49.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --