Universal Trading & Investment Co. v. Dugsbery, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Universal Trading & Investment Co. (“UTICo”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its action, and the ensuing judgment, against Pavlo Lazarenko, and entities purportedly under his control. We affirm.

The issues before us center on whether the California statute of limitations bars UTICo’s claim that it can sue Lazarenko on the basis that he is indebted to United Energy Systems of the Ukraine (“UESU”), which is the judgment debtor of UTICo. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 708.210, 708.230.

(1) UTICo first argues that the district court erred because it did not accept the allegations of UTICo’s First Amended Complaint as true, but UTICo fails to recognize that the district court was not required to accord that treatment to the bare legal conclusion that Lazarenko was indebted to UESU. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Marshall Naify Revocable Trust v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.2012); W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618 , 624 (9th Cir.1981). The district court did not err.

(2) UTICo then argues that the district court erred because it did not apply the law of the case doctrine when the…