runs from the date that proof of loss is required to be submitted to Provident, not from the date that Price knew he had a claim. Provident argues that because the contract required proof of loss within ninety days of the loss, the statute of limitations period expired at the latest three years and ninety days after the death of Price’s son. We reject the argument. “Because the cause of action is federal, ... federal law determines the time at which the cause of action accrues,” and “that time is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Northern Cal. Retail Clerks Unions v. Jumbo Markets, Inc., 906 F.2d 1371, 1372 (9th Cir.1990) (citations omitted); see also White v. Jacobs Engineering Group, 896 F.2d 344, 350-51 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The injury that is the basis of Price’s
holding that district courts have jurisdiction to review a claim that a person received inadequate notice of completed administrative forfeiture proceedings holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that settlement notice that failed to detail a distribution plan was not inadequate holding that inadequate notice did not trigger plans time bar for administrative review holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts