Hill

Hill v. Chattem, Inc.

Good Law
167 F. App'x 662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 17, 2006No. 05-35219California309 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Jo Hill, LaDonna Curton, Reszo Horvath, Marta Kuehne, and Anne Marie Mancebo (collectively “Hill”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in favor of Bayer Corporation. We affirm.

Hill’s complaint did not adequately plead the time and manner of discovery or her inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence, so Hill did not invoke California’s discovery rule. See McKelvey v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 151, 160 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 (1999); see also O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139 , 1157 (9th Cir.2002); Hopkins v. Dow Coming Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.1994). Thus, Bayer met its initial burden of showing that her claim was time-barred by submitting evidence of when Hill suffered a stroke and pointing out that the statute of limitations had run when her action was filed. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, at summary judgment, Hill proffered no evidence to invoke the delayed discovery rule. When, as here, the nonmoving party fails to produce evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party…

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.