Howard
Howard v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The district court correctly concluded that Howard’s claim is barred by limitations.
*919 California law provides that a cause of action accrues “when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.” Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 , 87 Cal.Rptr. 2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79, 83 (1999). Accrual may be delayed, however, if the discovery rule applies. “Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing.” Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923, 927 (1988). Howard relies on a different formulation of the rule, citing Pereira v. Dow Chem. Co., Inc., 129 Cal.App.3d 865 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 364 (1982). This reliance is misplaced. “To the extent Pereira supports [Howard’s] belief that accrual of the statute of limitations is delayed until the claimant has knowledge of specific facts establishing causation, it has been superseded by Jolly." Rivas v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 98 Cal.App.4th 218 , 119 Cal. Rptr.2d 503 (2002).
Howard’s attorney’s declaration March 28, 2001, combined with Howard’s own letter November 13, 2001, establishes…