Mawardi

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their claim that Shell, Texaco, and Equilon violated California Business & Professions Code § 20999.25(a). Specifically, Appellants challenge the district court’s holding that the claim was barred by the Act’s statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Dismissals based on statutes of limitations are reviewed de novo. 1 A dismissal without leave to amend is also reviewed de novo. 2 Such dismissal is improper unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.

1. Commencement of the Statute of Limitations Period

The initial issue in this case concerns the appropriate time at which to start the statute of limitations period. The applicable provision states that “[n]o action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under any provision of this chapter unless brought before the expiration of ... one *535 year after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting such violation.” 4 The district court applied the “discovery rule” to the statute, concluding that discovery of the necessary…