Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

For RICO Statute of Limitations Accrual Purposes, Date of Injury = Date of Investment

From Daly v. Pearl Spirits, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108188 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009):

In Volk v. Davidson, 816 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit held that receiving written disclosure of the possibility of injury was sufficient to put a RICO plaintiff on constructive notice of his injury.... There, the plaintiffs had invested in land, and the offering materials stated that the land contained a substantial amount of coal and would therefore result in tax benefits to the plaintiffs.... In 1978, the plaintiffs learned from the general partner that the land in fact contained less coal than had been represented.... In 1982, the IRS disallowed the deductions plaintiffs had taken in 1976-1978 as a result of the low quantity of coal present on the land....

Although the Volk plaintiffs argued that their injury occurred in 1982, the Ninth Circuit rejected their argument, holding that cognizable injury occurs when an investor enters into a transaction as a result of material misrepresentations.... "This constitutes the injury giving rise to a cause of action, even if an actual monetary loss is not sustained until later." ... "Appellants should have brought their action once they discovered or should have discovered the facts constituting their claim. Defrauded securities purchasers are not permitted to delay in bringing an action while avoidable damages accrue."

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

Archives