P. Lamont v. Time Warner, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

P. Stephen Lamont appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review; do novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lamont’s breach of contract claims as time-barred because Lamont filed his action more than four years after the alleged breach. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 337(1) (prescribing a four year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims); Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp., 82 Cal. App.4th 1018, 1022-23, 1029 , 98 Cal. Rptr.2d 661 (Ct.App.2000) (discussing accrual in connection with breach of contract claim based on nondisclosure agreement, and concluding that plaintiffs claim accrued at time of first breach and therefore was time-barred given lack of evidence to support application of discovery rule). Contrary to Lamont’s contentions, the theory of continuous accrual does not apply to his claims. See Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 Cal.App.4th 1375 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 412, 423…