Edd King v. National General Insurance Company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDD KING, et al., Case No. 15-cv-00313-DMR 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION TO APPLY THE DISCOVERY RULE 10 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 255 11 Defendants. 12 13 In a joint discovery letter dated December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs invoked the discovery rule 14 and sought to obtain discovery extending back to January 1, 2008. [Docket No. 239.] At the 15 February 9, 2023 hearing on the discovery dispute, the court ordered Plaintiffs to file a brief 16 setting out the law and facts in support of their position that the liability period in this putative 17 class action should extend back to 2008. [Docket No. 251 (“Minute Order”).] Plaintiffs timely 18 filed a motion to apply the discovery rule. [Docket No. 255 (“Mot.”).] Defendants opposed and 19 Plaintiffs replied. [Docket Nos. 257 (“Opp.”); 259 (“Reply”).] This matter is suitable for 20 determination without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. 21 In general, a claim accrues upon “the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause 22 of action.” Darringer v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-00300-RMW, 2015 WL 4623935, 23 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015) (quoting Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185, 24 1191 (2013)). “An important exception to the general rule of accrual is the discovery rule, which 25 postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the 26 cause of action.” Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. 16-CV-01421-WHO, 2022 WL 27 2833980, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2022) (quoting Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 1 Plaintiffs contend that the discovery rule applies to their claims. However, no one has 2 argued that Plaintiffs’ claims would be barred but-for application of the discovery rule. To the 3 contrary, Defendants acknowledge that “Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 22, 2015, and 4 timely asserted claims that carry a four-year statute of limitations.” Opp’n at 1. 5 As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs have not explained the significance of the discovery 6 rule with regards to the temporal scope of the class. Opp’n at 1, 5. They do not cite a single case 7 discussing the effect of the discovery rule on the potential temporal scope of a class action. They 8 also failed to submit any facts or evidence related to putative class members. On reply, Plaintiffs 9 assert only that “a reasonable class member would not have discovered her claim against National 10 General before this case was filed, making the discovery rule applicable classwide.” Reply at 1. 11 They aver that “whether the discovery rule applies to the class claims presents common questions 12 of fact and law to be resolved at a classwide trial, not on a discovery motion.” Id. 13 The court disagrees. As noted above, Plaintiffs were specifically ordered to file a brief 14 supporting their claim that the liability period in this case should go back to 2008. See Minute 15 Order. Plaintiffs have not made this showing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to apply the 16 discovery rule is denied. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 17, 2023 20 ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu 21 Chief Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27