Roy Dandridge v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

facts and recite them only as necessary. “We review de novo the district court’s

grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations

in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party.” Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., 896 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2018)

(citation omitted). “We review denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.”

Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2018). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err by dismissing the Dandridges’ breach-of-

contract claim based on SPS’s alleged failure to credit the Dandridges’ 2015 loan

payments to their account. The district court correctly concluded that this claim

accrued in 2015 and was therefore barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(a) (establishing four-year statute of limitations for

contract claims). California’s discovery rule “delays accrual until the plaintiff has,

or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-

Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914, 920 (Cal. 2005). The Dandridges could have…