Edd King et al v. National General Insurance Company et al

Filing 279

ORDER denying 255 Plaintiffs' motion to apply the discovery rule. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 4/17/2023. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDD KING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-00313-DMR

v.
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO APPLY THE
DISCOVERY RULE
Re: Dkt. No. 255

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

28

797, 807 (2005)).

1
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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs contend that the discovery rule applies to their claims. However, no one has

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
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2023
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2