Wegner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 012720 FED9, 18-16278
|Party Name:||JACQUELINE WEGNER, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronile Russell; RONILE RUSSELL, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||January 27, 2020|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 21, 2020 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:17-cv-01429-JCM-PAL for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, [***] District Judge.
Plaintiff Jacqueline Wegner, personally, and in her role as the representative of her mother's estate, appeals the district court's dismissal of her complaint alleging causes of action for defamation and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against Wells Fargo and former Wells Fargo executives (the "Individual Defendants"). We review the dismissal of Wegner's complaint de novo. Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). In doing so, we take all allegations in the complaint as true and construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
1. The district court properly dismissed Wegner's defamation claim against all Defendants as barred by the statute of limitations. Regardless of whether Nevada or California law applies, Wegner's claim-which was filed almost three years after Wegner became aware of the alleged defamatory statement-is barred. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(c) (two-year statute of limitations); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(c) (one-year statute of limitations). And Wegner's argument that she is entitled tolling because she did not discover Wells Fargo's sales tactics until much later is without merit under both Nevada and California law. Wegner was on notice of the core facts supporting her defamation claim as of August 13, 2014; therefore, there are no grounds to toll the statute of limitations. Petersen v. Bruen, 792 P.2d 18, 20 (Nev. 1990); Graham v. Hansen, 180...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP