RAVE v. OREAL USA INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-08No. No. 19-16065

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Rave's breach of contract claim as time-barred, rejecting both her equitable tolling and equitable estoppel arguments.

Kathleen Rave appealed the dismissal of her breach of contract claim against L'Oréal USA Inc. on statute of limitations grounds. Rave argued that the limitations period should have been tolled under either the doctrine of equitable tolling (based on her pursuit of an administrative remedy) or equitable estoppel (based on L'Oréal's alleged concealment). The appellate court found that Rave could not satisfy either doctrine. She never actually filed for administrative review, so she could not rely on that potential remedy to indefinitely delay filing suit. Additionally, once L'Oréal clearly informed her in 2009 that the subsidy had been terminated, she had full knowledge of the facts. Any alleged concealment about plan documents did not prevent her from filing suit in 2017, eleven years after the alleged breach and well beyond the applicable statute of limitations under either California or New York law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether equitable tolling applies when plaintiff never actually pursued the alternative administrative remedy
Whether equitable estoppel bars a statute of limitations defense based on defendant's concealment
Application of statute of limitations to contractual benefit denial claims

Procedural posture

Rave appealed the district court's dismissal of her breach of contract claim on statute of limitations grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Rave appeals the district courts dismissal of her breach of contract claim as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

The district court correctly concluded that Rave was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for her breach of contract claim. Under California law, “[a] plaintiffs pursuit of a remedy in another forum” can entitle her to tolling of the statute of limitations. Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1993).

On appeal, Rave argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled until she receives an adverse determination on her entitlement to the insurance premium subsidy through an administrative review process. However, because Rave does not allege that she ever filed a claim for administrative review of the denial of this benefit, she cannot invoke this doctrine. To do so would be, as the district court put it, to allow a plaintiff to “indefinitely toll the statute of limitations by never filing a claim for benefits.” Rave cites no case law that supports the establishment of such a rule.

The district court correctly concluded that Rave could not invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel to prevent LOreal from raising a statute of limitations defense. “A defendant will be estopped to invoke the statute of limitations where there has been some conduct by the defendant, relied upon by the plaintiff, which induces the belated filing of the action.” Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp., 160 Cal.App.4th 907, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216, 231–32 (2008) (quotation omitted).

First, Rave argues that LOreal’s concealment of whether she was entitled to the benefit induced her belated filing. This argument may have been applicable between 2006 and 2009, when LOreal had not clearly conveyed to Rave whether she was entitled to the subsidy. But once LOreal informed Rave in 2009 that the subsidy had been terminated and she would not be receiving the benefit, Rave knew unequivocally that she was not entitled to the subsidy. Rave could not invoke equitable estoppel on this ground after 2009. Therefore, receipt of this notice in 2009 shows that both the four-year statute of limitations under California law and the six-year statute of limitations under New York law would have run by the time Rave brought suit in 2017.

Second, Rave argues that LOreal’s concealment of the fact that no underlying plan documents existed with regard to the subsidy induced her belated filing, since she did not know whether the subsidy was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) or common law. Yet that “concealment,” did not, in fact, prevent Rave from filing suit in 2017. At that time, not knowing whether the subsidy was an ERISA benefit, she filed her first complaint bringing only ERISA claims. Rave cannot claim that this alleged concealment prevented her from filing within the limitations period when she filed suit armed with the same information eleven years after the alleged breach.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The district court declined to determine whether California or New York law applies to this suit in diversity jurisdiction, concluding that Raves claim was untimely under either states statute of limitations. When a federal court applies a state statute of limitations it also applies that states rules of tolling and estoppel. See Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 485–86, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). Here, we examine the California law that the parties exclusively invoke in their briefs. However, we note that no material difference would result were we to apply New York law. See, e.g., Doe v. Holy See (State of Vatican City), 17 A.D.3d 793, 793 N.Y.S.2d 565, 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (noting equitable estoppel applies “when the plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action” (quotation omitted)); Marshall v. Hyundai Motor Am., 51 F. Supp. 3d 451, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Equitable tolling applies where a defendants fraudulent conduct results in a plaintiffs lack of knowledge of a cause of action.”).