1. How did NBCUniversal respond to Montz and Smoller’s (RPI’s) lawsuit for breach of contract?

2. Were the RPIs correct in their assertion that they were entitled to delayed accrual of their claims under the “discovery rule” because they did not discover their claim until sometime in 2005?

3. How did the court of appeals decide this case?

Larry Montz and Daena Smoller, the real parties in interest (RPIs) in this case pitched a concept for a television program entitled Ghost Expeditions Haunted (Concepts) to NBCUniversal Media, LLC (NBC) from 1996 to 2001. The RPIs claim that, after NBC informed them they were not interested in Concepts, NBC teamed up with another company to misappropriate and exploit their concepts by producing the hit series Ghost Hunters without permission or compensation. The Ghost Hunters show premiered on the Syfy cable channel on October 6, 2004. The RPIs filed their first lawsuit on November 8, 2006. The Superior Court denied NBC’s motion for summary judgment which asserted the claims were time-barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations, and NBC appealed this decision.

JUDICIAL OPINION

MANELLA, J.… RPIs opposed the motion for summary judgment … As to the statute of limitations, RPIs contended that they were entitled to delayed accrual of their claims under discovery rule, as they did not discover their claims until sometime in 2005, when Smoller saw “an episode of the show ... upon which she realized that Ghost Hunters was not a fictional show.” …

Petitioners’ reply argued that RPIs had filed their claims more than a month after the statute of limitations had expired. Petitioners asserted that RPIs were not entitled to delayed accrual under the discovery rule. They contended that delayed discovery was inapplicable because the offending work—Ghost Hunters—had been publicly televised. Moreover, even if the discovery rule applied, RPIs were on inquiry notice before the show premiered on Syfy … Statute of Limitations

RPIs’ causes of action are governed by the two-year limitations period set forth in section 339. (§ 339, subd. (1) [claims based on a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing [breach of implied contract claim governed by two-year limitations period of section 339, subdivision 1]; [assuming action for breach of confidence is valid cause of action, it is governed by two-year limitations period of section 339, subdivision 1].)

Generally, the limitations period starts running when the last element of a cause of action is complete. As used in this context, the “‘elements’” of a cause of action are the “‘generic’” elements of wrongdoing, causation, and injury. “A suit for breach of an implied contract not to exploit an idea without paying for it ... arise[s] only with the sale or exploitation of the idea.” … Due to the difficulty in ascertaining the parties’ intent in implied contract cases, “California courts generally assume that the accrual date is the date on which the work is released to the general public,” as the public release would destroy any further marketability. (Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 607 F.3d 620, 633.) For a breach of confidence cause of action, the accrual date is easier to ascertain: the statute of limitations runs from the date of the first unauthorized disclosure. … …………………..