Benjamin-Sohal
Benjamin-Sohal v. Pacific Bell
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jasmine Benjamin-Sohal appeals the judgment dismissing her action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
*555 Benjamin-Sohal contends that the statute of limitations does not bar relief. We disagree.
Benjamin-Sohal’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred because it was filed more than one year after she discovered her cause of action. See Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 340(3); Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc., 47 Cal.App.4th 1024 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 234 (Cal.Ct.App. 1996). Her claims involving fraud are barred because they were filed more than three years after she discovered these causes of action. See Cal.Code Civ. P. § 338(d); Magpali, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d at 233 . Her claim against Pacific Bell Telephone Company is barred by the six-month statute of limitations governing actions under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 . See DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169-72 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).