Mattarolo v. Rorback
Mattarolo v. Rorback
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Richard, Allison, and Amy Mattarolo appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of
Appellants did not file the instant complaint until January 25, 1999. Because they learned of their injury on September 7, 1997, the district court properly determined the action was time-barred. Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 352.1; see Fink v. She-dler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999).
Appellants’ remaining contentions lack merit.
We decline to address issues raised for the first time in Appellants’ reply brief. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990).
Appellants’ motion to correct caption is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Ride 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Richard MATTAROLO Plaintiffs—Appellants v. John RORBACK, Defendants—Appellees
- Status
- Published