KENNETH NOGLE V. BEECH STREET CORP, No. 13-15635 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 01 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK KENNETH NOGLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15635 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01092-KJD v. MEMORANDUM* BEECH STREET CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 12, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and RAYES,** District Judge. The district court properly found no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether plaintiff Kenneth Nogle’s complaint against defendant Beech * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Street Corporation (“Beech Street”) was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions in Nevada. See Nev. Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 955 F.2d 1304, 1306–07 (9th Cir. 1992); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e). Under Nevada’s discovery rule, the statute of limitations is tolled until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts giving rise to his cause of action. Peterson v. Bruen, 792 P.2d 18, 20 (Nev. 1990). The district court properly found that Nogle had sufficient information available to him in March 2008 to investigate and identify Beech Street as a potential defendant. Specifically, Nogle should have discovered Beech Street’s role in assuring the quality of the endoscopy provider by pursuing leads from information contained in at least three documents: 1) the pre-approval letter from November 6, 2006, 2) the 2007 Summary Plan Description, and 3) the insurance card. Accordingly, Nogle’s September 8, 2010 complaint against Beech Street was untimely because it was filed more than two years after he reasonably should have known that he had a cause of action against Beech Street. AFFIRMED. 2

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.