with National Railroad’s explanation, most closely resembles a discrete act. Even assuming for a moment that transfers did not constitute discrete acts such that Eng’s subsequent transfers to Los Padrinos and Kenyon could be linked to the transfer to Pomona to establish “a series of separate acts,” and that Plaintiff had adequately raised a disputed issue of fact as to the materiality of the later two transfers, Plaintiff would not be able to overcome the time-barred fate of a claim based on the first transfer. Consistent with the holding in the case upon he himself relies, Plaintiff cannot cite the continuing “effects” of a prior wrongful act to “give [it] present effect.” Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 257-58, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff was already subject to the
holding that mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine recognizing cause of action recognizing the cause of action holding that mere continuity of employment  is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action