Charles Yeager v. Connie Bowlin

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager and his foundation challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Ed and Connie Bowlin and the award to them of attorneys’ fees. We affirm.

1. The district court concluded that the single-publication rule bars as untimely Yeager’s claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 , California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200, and California’s False Advertising Act, id. § 17500. We agree.

We have not resolved whether a statute of limitations defense applies to claims under the Lanham Act, which are of “equitable character.” See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.2002). On appeal, Yeager argues that the statute of limitations does not apply to Lanham Act claims. However, Yeager waived this argument by failing to raise it in the district court in his opposition to the Bowlins’ motion for summary judgment. Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010). We therefore decline to reverse the district court on this basis. If the statute of limitations defense applies to a claim under the Lan- ham Act, the single-publication rule would apply to it.…