Vigil

Vigil v. Miller

Good Law
17 F. App'x 657
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 28, 2001No. 00-15820; D.C. No. CV-99-00116-PGRCalifornia253 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

This is a pro se appeal of the district court’s final judgment of dismissal of appellants’ action on statute of limitations grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The statute of limitations bars this action. The limitations period for negligence and legal malpractice claims in Arizona is two years. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-542; Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, 187 Ariz. 136 , 927 P.2d 796, 799 (Ariz. Ct.App.1996). Appellants had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the negligence and malpractice claims no later than 1996, when they filed a bar complaint against defendants on the same facts.

Appellants’ breach of contract claim is likewise barred. The claim is more accurately characterized as a tort subject to the two-year statute of limitations. See Long v. Buckley, 129 Ariz. 141 , 629 P.2d 557, 562 (Ariz.1981) (holding “contract” malpractice action brought pursuant to retainer agreement barred by tort statute of limitations).

*658 Finally, after careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellants leave to amend the complaint. Because the statute of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.