Laura Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Laura Plumlee appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Plumlee’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice because her claims were time-barred under the three- and four-year statutes of limitations applicable to her claims. On appeal, Plumlee alleges that she did not learn of Pfizer’s alleged misrepresentations concerning Zoloft’s efficacy until May 2012, and that her delayed discovery of Pfizer’s alleged misrepresentations extends the statute of limitations applicable to her claims under the “discovery rule.” Under California law,'the discovery rule delays accrual of claims only when a plaintiff has no reason to suspect wrongdoing and can not discover his or her claims with reasonable diligence. See, e.g., Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79, 88-89 (1999).

The discovery rule does not extend the statutes of limitations applicable to Plum-lee’s otherwise time-barred claims. Plum-lee alleged that she stopped taking Zoloft’s generic equivalent in June…