Levy v. Levy CA2/1

Filed 11/27/23 Levy v. Levy CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ESTHER LEVY, B321095

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC107051) v.

AVRAHAM LEVY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Virginia Keeny, Judge. Affirmed. _______________

Esther Levy, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _______________

Plaintiff and appellant Esther Levy appeals from the judgment following a court trial on her claims against defendant and respondent, her brother Avraham Levy.1 The court below concluded that all of appellant’s claims—for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract—were time-barred. Appellant’s claims are based in part on a purported oral promise by respondent that, at some time in the future, he would transfer certain real property to her as compensation for services she would provide, including working at respondent’s business for little or no wages and assisting his family with childcare. Appellant did not identify any specific length of time she was to perform these services under the purported agreement. Appellant contends that her claims did not accrue until respondent sold the property to a third party in August 2017, and thus that her March 28, 2018 complaint is not time-barred. We agree with the trial court that her claims accrued no later than November 19, 2013, and that her claims are thus barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, the longest of which is four years.2 A “cause of action [for fraud] is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d)), meaning “ ‘when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered all facts essential to his cause of action.’ ” (April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 826; accord, Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807 (Fox) [cause of action accrues when “the