Rezanezhad Gatabi v. Target Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 25-316
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMAN REZANEZHAD GATABI, No. 25-316 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-02398-LB v. MEMORANDUM* TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ROBERT CALIFF, Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in his official capacity as Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration, TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, SAFEWAY, INC., NATURAL GROCERS, VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted April 22, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Iman Rezanezhad Gatabi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action alleging state law personal injury claims.1

Rezanezhad Gatabi, a current resident of California, filed suit in the Northern

District of California against Target and other grocery retailers alleging he suffered

mercury poisoning by consuming large amounts of seafood he purchased in

California and North Dakota from 2016 to 2020. On appeal, his primary

contention is that the district court should have applied North Dakota’s six-year

statute of limitations because he consumed some of the seafood while living there.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court properly concluded that California law, rather than

North Dakota law, governed Rezanezhad Gatabi’s claims against Target. In

diversity jurisdiction cases, we apply the substantive law of the forum where the

court is located, which in this case is California. First Intercontinental Bank v.

Ahn, 798 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2015). California courts apply the

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Rezanezhad Gatabi only appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Target.

2 25-316 “governmental interest” approach to conflict of law issues, in which the correct

choice of law depends on the respective interests of the states involved. Senne v.

Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting

Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914, 922 (Cal. 2006)).

Rezanezhad Gatabi argues that the district court erred by not considering his

claims against Target separately from his claims against the other defendants in

applying the governmental interest test. This framing is belied by Rezanezhad

Gatabi’s own complaint, which asserts a single negligence claim alleging a

cumulative injury caused by the actions of all the grocery store defendants.

Applying California’s choice-of-law rules, the district court correctly

concluded that California’s statute of limitations applies to this case. Rezanezhad

Gatabi began experiencing symptoms in 2018, but he did not initiate his lawsuit

until April 2024. California has a two-year statute of limitations for most tort

claims alleging personal injury, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1, whereas North

Dakota’s statute of limitations is six years, see N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 28-01-

16(5).

We agree with the district court that, in light of these “claims brought in a

California court by a California resident regarding products sold in California

stores,” California has a stronger interest than North Dakota in seeing its laws

applied to this case. See Rustico v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 993 F.3d 1085, 1095

3 25-316 n.5 (9th Cir. 2021). As pled in the operative complaint, no party to this lawsuit is a

resident of North Dakota, and the vast majority of Rezanezhad Gatabi’s seafood

purchases were in California.2 We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of

Rezanezhad Gatabi’s claims against Target as time-barred because he failed to file

his action within California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury

actions. To the extent Rezanezhad Gatabi contends that delayed discovery tolled

his claims, we agree with the district court that he fails to demonstrate entitlement

to tolling under California law. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th

Cir. 1993); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914, 917 (Cal. 2005).

2. Rezanezhad Gatabi does not dispute that, if California law applies, any

allegations of emotional distress are duplicative of his untimely negligence claim.

See Burgess v. Superior Court, 831 P.2d 1197, 1200 (Cal. 1992). Accordingly,

even if Rezanezhad Gatabi’s claims were not-time barred, the district court

properly dismissed his contentions of emotional distress for this additional reason.

AFFIRMED.

2 Rezanezhad Gatabi incorrectly factors the 131 purchases from Natural Grocers in North Dakota into his purchase calculation on appeal, but the district court previously dismissed his claims against Natural Grocers for lack of personal jurisdiction. Excluding Natural Grocers, 151 out of 181 of Rezanezhad Gatabi’s seafood purchases were in California.

4 25-316