of action [for unfair competition] shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.” Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17208 (West 1987). Significantly, the “discovery rule” applicable to the claims discussed above is inapplicable on this count; thus, the statute begins to run when cause of action accrues, irrespective of whether plaintiff knew of its accrual, unless plaintiff can successfully invoke the equitable tolling doctrine. See Rosack v. Volvo of Am. Corp., 131 Cal.App.3d 741, 751, 182 Cal.Rptr. 800 (1982) (stating that cases interpreting federal Sherman and Clayton Acts are applicable to California’s Cartwright Act), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1012, 103 S.Ct. 1253, 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983); Pennsylvania v. Lake Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 610 F.Supp. 885, 890 (M.D.Pa.1985) (<HOLDING>); Dayco Corp. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding that statute of limitations for antitrust claim begins to run at time of accrual notwithstanding plaintiffs ignorance of facts giving rise to claim holding that fcra statute of limitations begins to run when a consumer discovers the facts giving rise to his claims holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered