U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Keating-Traynor v. AC Square

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 19, 2009 · Ikuta, Kleinfeld, Smith

343 F. App'x 214

Counsel

Daniel Berko, Law Offices of Daniel Berko, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Benjamin A. Emmert, Ron E. Peters, Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Jose, CA, Daryl S. Landy, Esquire, Morgan Lewis & Boekius, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Ann Marie Reding, Esquire, Morgan Lewis & Boeki-us, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

McZeal v. Solon House, LLC (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2024)
Scholzen v. Scholzen Products Company (District Court, D. Utah 2020)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Keating-Traynor appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) action seeking overtime compensation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations because Keating-Tray-nor filed the action more than three years after his FLSA claim accrued in May 2005. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) (setting forth a three-year limitations period for an alleged willful violation of the FLSA); Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1540 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that the statute of limitations for an FLSA claim accrues “the day the employee’s paycheck is normally issued, but isn’t”).

Because Keating-Traynor cannot state a claim for violation of the FLSA, the district court properly dismissed the civil conspiracy claim. See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 208 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that because the underlying cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, “the civil conspiracy claim also must fail”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.