Mark Groce v. Theodore Claudat

MEMORANDUM

Mark Glenn Groce appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his wage-and-hour action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and review for an abuse of discretion the decision whether to apply equitable tolling or equitable estoppel, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court correctly determined that all of Groce’s claims, with the exception of his Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim based on his last week of employment, were time-barred because Groce was not incarcerated when his claims accrued. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 352.1(a) (requirements for statutory tolling due to incarceration). His claims were ineligible for equitable tolling because he failed to demonstrate that he exercised the requisite due diligence or that he acted reasonably and in good faith in attempting to bring his claims. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir.2011) (federal standard for equitable tolling); McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 , 84 Cal.Rptr.3d…