Bennett

facts, we do not recount them here.

Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(a). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine

whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court applied

the relevant substantive law. Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 873 F.2d

1338 (9th Cir. 1989).

Bennett argues on appeal that the district court erred in determining that his

claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he should have, and did,

discover his cause of action before March 3, 2021.

Although the general rule provides that the statute of limitations begins to

run “when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements,” Norgart v.

Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 397 (1999), under California’s discovery rule a cause

of action does not accrue “until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover,

the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 807

…