FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 05 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARD WATER DISTRICT, No. 14-56943
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:13-cv-02727-JM-PCL
v.
JAMES DAVEY AND ASSOCIATES, MEMORANDUM*
INC., an Arizona Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 8, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BELL,** District Judge.
Bard Water District (Bard) appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of its claims
against James Davey and Associates (Davey) for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
dismissal of Bard’s breach of contract claim but reverse the dismissal of its breach
of fiduciary claim.
1. The district court determined that “the project document was not, on
its face, a contract between the parties.” Finding that “there was no language in the
document suggesting a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants,”
the district court properly concluded that, because there was no contract between
the parties, Bard failed to state a claim for breach of contract.
2. The district court further found that Bard “adequately alleged the
existence of a fiduciary relationship,” but nevertheless dismissed the claim because
it concluded the claim was “based solely on Defendants’ alleged failure to comply
with the specific duties of the project engineer as described in the project
document,” the same allegations underlying the breach of contract claim. But,
under California law, a fiduciary relationship, such as agent to principal, can exist
separate and apart from a contractual relationship. See, e.g., Stephenson v. Drever,
16 Cal. 4th 1167, 1179 (1997). The district court incorrectly concluded that,
because the project document was not a contract, Bard failed to state a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty. Bard’s fiduciary breach allegations are sufficient to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
2
3. Davey argues on appeal that both of Bard’s claims are barred by its
failure to comply with California’s certificate of merit requirements. See Cal.
Code Civ. P. § 411.35. In federal diversity cases, only substantive state law
applies to state claims; procedural state law does not. See Erie R.R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Because the certification required by Cal. Code
Civ. P. § 411.35 is procedural in nature, it is inapplicable here. See Apex
Directional Drilling, LLC v. SHN Consulting Eng’rs & Geologists, Inc., 119 F.
Supp. 3d 1117, 1128–30 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (finding that the statute is not outcome
determinative, and is therefore procedural); Rafael Town Ctr. Investors v. Weitz
Co., No. C 06-6633 SI, 2007 WL 1577886, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2007)
(finding that Cal. Code Civ. P. § 411.35 does not contain substantive elements of a
professional negligence claim, does not limit recovery in any way, and is
“somewhat similar” to other procedural state laws, and is therefore procedural).
4. Davey further argues on appeal that Bard’s claims are barred by the
statute of limitations. In California, courts look to the “gravamen” of the
complaint to determine which statute of limitations applies. Hensler v. City of
Glendale, 8 Cal. 4th 1, 22 (1994). The gravamen of Bard’s complaint is breach of
fiduciary duty. California’s Code of Civil Procedure establishes a four-year statute
of limitations for most written agreements. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 337. It does not
3
specify a statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty, so the residual four-
year statute of limitations governs such claims. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 343. The
parties agree that the statute of limitations began to run on November 15, 2009,
when Bard claims that it discovered the alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary
duty. Bard filed its first complaint on November 13, 2013, within the four-year
period. Thus, its claims are not time-barred.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
4