“[O]nce the corporate plaintiff shows that adverse domination exists, the defendants have the burden of showing that there was someone who had the knowledge, ability and motivation to bring suit during the period in which defendants controlled the corporation.” In re Verit Industries, Inc., 172 F.3d 61, at *2 (9th Cir. 1999). “The doctrine carries the same requirement of notice before accrual is deemed to have occurred.
The Court's further examination of Ninth Circuit case law failed to reveal a case that would have met the "clearly established" standard.See, e.g., Williams v. Burns, 172 F.3d 61 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Because [the plaintiff] failed to offer any evidence his eyes became worse due to the delay in receiving glasses, his deliberate indifference claim fails."); Aytch v. Sablica, 498 F. App'x 703, 705 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact for deliberate indifference when his vision problems were "corrected when he received eyeglasses.").