51. IV Finally, we must determine whether the district court erred in dismissing Johnson’s FEHA claims as barred by the statute of limitations. Under California law, a plaintiff who intends to assert a FEHA claim must first file a complaint with the California DFEH, Cal. Gov’iCode § 12960, and then must file the claims within one year after the DFEH issues a right-to-sue letter for the defendants listed in the complaint, id. § 12965(b). Johnson received a right-to-sue letter from the DFEH on September 30, 2002 and timely filed an action in California state court on September 5, 2003. Nevertheless, he voluntarily dismissed that action on October 16, 2003 and then waited until December 2, 2003, 64 days after the limitations period expired, to App.3d 1035, 1059, 224 Cal. Rptr. 213 (1986) (<HOLDING>)). 3 . Even if Johnson could demonstrate that
holding that a debtor was not acting in bad faith when he converted a case under chapter 7 to a case under chapter 13 for the purpose of discharging a debt for fraud but it was a fact which could be considered holding that a local chapter of the rotary club could challenge the national rotary clubs maleonly policy under  51 holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7 holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth