Fodor

MEMORANDUM **

Gyorgy Fodor appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging invasion of privacy, wiretapping, unfair competition, and various other tort and statutory claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s dismissal order de novo, see Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record, see Vestar Dev. II v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Contrary to Fodor’s contentions, the district court properly dismissed his first and third claims as time-barred. Although Fodor is correct that the district court’s order misstates the date he filed his original complaint in this action, this does not save his first claim for invasion of privacy. Fodor alleges that defendants were unlawfully intercepting his private conversations as early as 1995 in order to further a murderous plot, but he does not explain why he could not have discovered this alleged wrongdoing earlier than 2004. See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 808 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 110 P.3d 914 (Cal.2005) (“a plaintiff whose…