Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose

Ninth Circuit

Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose

185 F. App'x 695

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 23, 2006·No. No. 04-16485·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group and others (collectively, Santa Teresa) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their § 1983 action against the City of San Jose, the City Council of San Jose, and Ron Gonzalez, the mayor of San Jose. We affirm.

First, we deny Santa Teresa’s request to take judicial notice of an October 2002 document.

[696]*696Second, we agree with the district court that all of Santa Teresa’s claims are time-barred. The claims are not saved by the November 14, 2004 letter that Santa Teresa represented constitutes the tolling agreement and asked the district court to take judicial notice of. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that court is not obliged to take conclusory allegations in complaint as true when contradicted by documents of which judicial notice is properly taken). The operative language of the November 14, 2004 agreement plainly extends the statute of limitations to January 5, 2004; it does not toll it. As the district court correctly determined that Santa Teresa’s claims accrued when San Jose and Calpine Corporation entered into the Cooperation Agreement on June 26, 2001, not when certain contingencies in that Agreement were ultimately satisfied, this action was untimely filed.

Finally, equitable tolling does not apply. Assuming no bad faith, the same parties were not part of Santa Teresa’s litigation against the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission or in evidentiary privity with the defendants in that action, and the claims focused on different issues. Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth California’s three-part test); Collier v. City of Pasadena, 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924, 928, 191 CaLRptr. 681 (Cal.App.1983).

Given this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the alternative grounds for affirmance advanced by San Jose.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group and others (collectively, Santa Teresa) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their § 1983 action against the City of San Jose, the City Council of San Jose, and Ron Gonzalez, the mayor of San Jose. We affirm.

First, we deny Santa Teresa’s request to take judicial notice of an October 2002 document.

[696]*696Second, we agree with the district court that all of Santa Teresa’s claims are time-barred. The claims are not saved by the November 14, 2004 letter that Santa Teresa represented constitutes the tolling agreement and asked the district court to take judicial notice of. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that court is not obliged to take conclusory allegations in complaint as true when contradicted by documents of which judicial notice is properly taken). The operative language of the November 14, 2004 agreement plainly extends the statute of limitations to January 5, 2004; it does not toll it. As the district court correctly determined that Santa Teresa’s claims accrued when San Jose and Calpine Corporation entered into the Cooperation Agreement on June 26, 2001, not when certain contingencies in that Agreement were ultimately satisfied, this action was untimely filed.

Finally, equitable tolling does not apply. Assuming no bad faith, the same parties were not part of Santa Teresa’s litigation against the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission or in evidentiary privity with the defendants in that action, and the claims focused on different issues. Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth California’s three-part test); Collier v. City of Pasadena, 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924, 928, 191 CaLRptr. 681 (Cal.App.1983).

Given this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the alternative grounds for affirmance advanced by San Jose.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose, 185 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

185 F. App'x 695 (Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related