FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 20 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY D. WILLIAMS, No. 14-16929
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00760-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BOBBIE J. STITT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 17, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bobby D. Williams (“Williams”) appeals the dismissal for failure to state a
claim of his action to contest the Revocable Trust set up by his father Gomez Williams
(“Gomez’s Trust”). We affirm.
The district court correctly applied the 120-day statute of limitations in
California Probate Code section 16061.8 to this action. Williams received written
notice of the administration of Gomez’s Trust on February 23, 2010, yet did not bring
his action until February 19, 2014, almost four years later. See generally Bridgeman
v. Allen, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657, 659-62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (affirming dismissal of
a petition to contest trust amendments filed 133 days late).
Williams’s argument that section 16061.8 applies only to contests where the
trust contains a no contest clause fails because the plain language of the provision
provides no such exception. See Straley v. Gamble, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 484, 486-87
(Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Williams leave to file
a third amended complaint. The terms of Gomez’s Trust permitted the addition of
new property and, contrary to Williams’s argument, California Probate Code section
15200(b) has no application to this case. Thus allowing a further amendment would
have been futile.
AFFIRMED.
2