Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “just like common law claims challenging fraudulent conduct, a UCL deceptive practices claim should accrue only when a reasonable person would have discovered the factual basis for a claim.”
• noting that “if the operative complaint sounded solely in fraud and alleged a single fraud committed at contract formation,” the theory of continuous accrual “should not save” the complaint
• finding the continuing 25 violation doctrine inapplicable where the allegations against Defendants are “a series of 26 discrete, independently actionable wrongs”
• explaining difference between continuing violation and continuing course of conduct theories, and that latter is referred to as \continuous accrual\ theory
• stating it is “long settled that separate, recurring invasions of the same right 7 can each trigger their own statute of limitations”
• discussing continuing-wrong principles with respect to UCL claims governed by common law accrual rules

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).