FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM TRAYNOR; PATRICIA Nos. 09-56535, 09-56596
TRAYNOR; REBECCA TRAYNOR,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02990-FMC-SS
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM *
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN
GENERAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2011 **
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The district court properly granted Lexington’s motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiffs’ action was barred by the limitations period in their insurance contract,
and they have not established that a 12-month limitations period is both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable. See Armendariz v. Found. Health
Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 690 (Cal. 2000). The question is whether the
limitations period is “reasonable,” Order of United Comm. Travelers of Am. v.
Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608 (1947), and numerous California cases confirm that 12
months is. See, e.g., Fageol Truck & Coach Co. v. Pac. Indem. Co., 117 P.2d 669,
672 (Cal. 1941) (in bank); see also Han v. Mobil Oil Corp., 73 F.3d 872, 877 (9th
Cir. 1995) (citing cases).
Because plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred, we need not reach whether they
pleaded AIG’s alter ego liability sufficiently, or whether the district court erred in
denying defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
AFFIRMED.
2