NITHYA VINAYAGAM V. ANDREW PIERCE, ET AL, No. 23-15307 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 2 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NITHYA VINAYAGAM, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15307 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05281-TLT v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW F. PIERCE; PIERCE SHEARER LLP; SCOTT M. BERMAN; THOMAS MIHILL; JACQUETTA LANNAN; PAUL M. HELLER; HELLER IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP; ADAMS LAW OFFICES, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Nithya Vinayagam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims arising out of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Vinayagam’s action as time-barred because Vinayagam failed to file her action within the applicable statutes of limitations or establish any basis for tolling. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) (three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); id. § 340.6(a) (providing that legal malpractice claims must be brought within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, and setting forth grounds for tolling); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four-year statute of limitations for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 555-56 (2000) (explaining that a four-year statute of limitations applies to a civil RICO claim and discussing the discovery rule); Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing discovery rule and principle of fraudulent concealment). AFFIRMED. 2 23-15307

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.