an overarching, all-embracing maximum time period to attack a fraudulent transfer, no matter whether brought under UFTA or otherwise.” Macedo v. Bosio, 86 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051 n. 4, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (2001). “[T]he maximum elapsed time for a suit under either the UFTA or otherwise is seven years after the transfer.” Id. (emphasis in original); accord. Roach, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1199. This conclusion is supported by the plain language of section 3439.09(c), which states that “a cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer ... is extinguished.” Cal. Civ.Code § 3439.09(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot attack a fraudulent transfer through an unjust enrichment claim without satisfying the requirements of section 3439.09(c). See, e.g., Forum Ins., 62 Fed.Appx. at 152 (<HOLDING>); Roach, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1199 (holding that
holding that section 343909c cannot be tolled by california code of civil procedure  351 holding that plaintiffs civil conspiracy claim was barred by section 343909c recognizing that although civil conspiracy is a separate actionable tort a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication holding plaintiffs  19853 claim alleging a conspiracy among a corporation and its directors to discriminate against her on the basis of sex was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine