
    Mike M. MADANI; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-56332.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2009.
    Joseph Alioto, Jr., Trial, Joseph M. Alio-to, Alioto Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, Thomas P. Bleau, Esquire, Bleau Fox, A. P.L.C., Los Angeles, CA, Daniel R. Shul-man, Esquire, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Bradley S. Phillips, Stuart Neil Senator, Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esquire, White & Case LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Craig Stewart, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, Vincent R. Fitzpatrick, Jr., White & Case, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: THOMPSON and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their antitrust action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, review de novo, Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1135 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm.

The district court correctly ruled that the limitations period for this class action was not tolled by a prior class action. Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987). Nor does Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), compel a different result. None of the peculiar reasons justifying tolling in that case is present in this case. Id. at 1147—49.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     