Rosemary T. Steeno, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Virgil T. Hunter; David Parker; Covenant Transport, Inc.,defendants-appellees, 34 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 34 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted Aug. 23, 1994. *Decided Aug. 29, 1994

Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Rosemary Steeno appeals pro se the district court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) dismissal of Steeno's diversity action seeking damages for injuries she suffered in an auto accident. The district court dismissed Steeno's action on the ground that it was barred by the applicable California statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

On appeal, Steeno contends that the district court erred by granting defendants' motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations was tolled under California's equitable tolling rule during the pendency of her state court action. Steeno, however, raises the issue of equitable tolling for the first time on appeal.

"Generally, we decline to hear issues which were not raised before the district court unless exceptional circumstances exist." Pacific Express, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 814 (1992). " [A]n exceptional circumstance may exist where the newly raised issue is a purely legal one which either does not depend on the factual record developed below or the pertinent record has been fully developed." Id. (citation omitted).

Exceptional circumstance do not exist in this case. Accordingly, we decline to decide Steeno's equitable tolling issue. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.