Case Explained: HOPKINS V. CALLAHAN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-03 Docket: 5:23-cv-02347-SSS-SP The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Elsa F. Callahan and its denial of plaintiff Robert J. Hopkins’s motion for reconsideration. The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment ruling and abuse of discretion review to the denial of reconsideration. The appellate court held that all of Hopkins’s claims were time-barred under applicable California statutes of limitations. Specifically, the breach of fiduciary duty claims were untimely because Hopkins knew or reasonably should have discovered the factual bases for his claims more than three years prior to filing, pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 16460(a). The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was also untimely as the alleged distress occurred outside the two-year limitations period set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Regarding the motion for reconsideration, the court found no abuse of discretion because Hopkins merely restated arguments previously raised and failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment stands and the appeal is dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.