Legal Opinion

Barry Atkins v. Calypso Systems, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 20, 2017No. 17-15125Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Barry M. Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims in connection with a dispute over a 'debt-to-stock conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review de novo, Lukovsky v, City of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Atkins’ contract claims because they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations under California law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(1) (four-year statute of limitations for any action…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  3. Lukovsky v. City and County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  4. Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Vu v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API