this case is that the district court fundamentally at least implicitly found facts in it in deciding that the plaintiffs did not meet the applicable tolling standard and that that was inappropriate  bennett did find in the fineman case that the plan is in that case met the equitable tolling standard after the summary judgment motions were filed and he found that a class should be certified even though there were arguably some differences among case he did and he based that on primarily i think the fact two facts one is that the lawyers who were involved in the fine case had at some point obtained access to a large database from genuine title and the database included the names of far worse and the names of banks but what it really didn't include was a sufficient information to know whether in those cases genuine title had paid kickbacks to the banks and certainly you would not file a complaint immediately just because you know that genuine title had had a practice of paying kickbacks to certain banks and in the case of the you know the the the federal authority the consumer finance protection bureau and the state authority maryland has sued but they had they had sued well fargo bank and j p morgan chase for this scheme whereby genuine title had paid those banks kickbacks in order to get title services for their loans but that nothing in those complaints filed by the c f p be in the state nothing in the newspaper articles said oh and by the way bank of america was also included in this and eagle bank was these were dismissed at an early stage in both instances in bank of america's case it was because the loan officer that the plaintiffs thought had been with bank of america at the time was not so there that that loan officer was with some different bank and so bank of america got out of the case on that basis and eagle the situation was that in fact when originally they just sued genuine title the plaintiffs amended their complaint to sue a number of the banks later but they had to concede that the time period that elapsed between the initial complaint and the amended complaint was too long for the case against eagle to proceed because famine the plaintiff in feynman was an eagle borrower and so that on that situation they were dismissed but that has nothing to do with all the other people who are out there in the world all the other homeowners that had loans from eagle bank they knew nothing about the famine case they were and judge bennett seemed to have an idea that somehow there was enough information in the atmosphere that a homeowner would know that i'd better go to figure out if i've got a claim against bank of america page news about new you know i think for if you're not going to talk to the plaintiff about what the plaintiff actually knew which judge bennett didn't do want to all be sixteen are here quite as you say we knew nothing about this they alleged that in their complaint they finding of fact that the plaintiff should have known and i asked myself i have i have had financings and refinancings maybe a dozen times in my life if will because they asked me to ask the lawyers in this case you see the that is part of the fraud all right so this is i mean this is helpful to me and i'm trying to sort of get a handle on exactly what your position is that the district court finds that i need two thousand and fifteen given the litigation the enforcement actions in the or should have known the answer is no you have to ask the client to find out you know did you read the baltimore sun and the plight of may say i don't read the newspaper did you read the you know there they included articles here from investor's business daily from the financial times of london here say average hardliner does not read that material you're saying the court made a lot of assumptions then absolutely and really they became implicit findings of fact that there was enough information out there for these plaintiffs contrary to what they complaint that there was enough information out there that they knew or should have known about their claims now he found that they didn't know just but it said no i accept as a given what's said in the complaint that these plaintiffs did not know anything about this fraud until they were alerted to it by the lawyers so he accepted that but he nonetheless found that the that's it was not an extraordinary circumstance because somehow they could have found out something from somebody that's just not an appropriate analysis for a judge to undertake when it's what we six motion i ask you a question about the statute of limitations under arrest but i do i think this is very confusing and so the statute of limitations it's an unusual one because it's not ok to the date of discovery right it seems like it's a hard and fast one year after you take out your loan that's how much time you got so congress didn't seem to be particularly concerned with whether anyone could have known about their claim it's not to what you knew or should have been told you had a problem it's just why did you take out do we have to consider that question here i don't think so your honor it it's not a jurisdictional statue of limitations it's never been held to be in any published opinion by this court that was an unpublished opinion thirty years ago it's an unpublished opinion i don't know why  been discarded in the d c circuit this is not a jurisdictional statute of limitations because congress didn't say explicitly that it is ok which congress has to do in order to get from out from under the home or god from which says that all statutes of limitations and federal law are subject to equitable tolling and the reason is pretty clear congress does not want people to be defrauded and then to find out after dusk the statue of limitations has expired that they have explained they never knew  so then you would think congress would have put in this statute of limitations like they did in all those hours you have one year to sue after you knew or should have known of your claim back if congress had wanted to like create a text cut off they could have an people get disclosure about what was going on in the real estate settlement does the primary intent of congress in passing the statute what intent was to do away with check backs which the banks and genuine title flaunted in this case because they engaged in kickbacks in violation of federal law the second thing though is congress one people have disclosure about what was going on in their settlement if the banks wanted to avoid a situation where the statue of limitations is not told the bank should have informed people oh by the way let me know you're referring you supermarket it does not at all your honor i don't why not because monogamy first of all wasn't the one fraudulent conveyance monogamy was dealing with an entirely differ form of equitable totally not  and concealment i'm sorry and the supermarket case is a fraudulent concealment case and fraudulent concealment is one aspect of the kinds of extraordinary circumstances that might give rise to equitable tolling there are other forms that and their client the class action doctrine is one a situation where the plaintiff files in the wrong court and then it gets dismissed b can refile because he made a jurisdictional mistake is another there are situations where the courthouse were closed  and i was about to file my complaint and i couldn't that might be an extraordinary circumstance outside the plaintiff's control that would give rise to equitable tolling but this so fraudulent conveyance is one form of that that analysis was employed and was employed correctly because one concern is that you don't want plaintiffs to file suit based on hunches i think maybe because genuine title was involved in a fraud with this bank maybe in my bank they were involved in a fraud to offer a lawsuit just to be safe you don't want to have that situation is that the plaintiff has to have enough information to know that he has a cause of action in this case those are required to do something in every case no it doesn't and supermarket of morals in the court if the fraud of the fraudulent concealment is anough of the planet is totally unaware that anything's happened to him then the plaintiff doesn't have to do anything you only have to do something if you know you've been injured in this case i  some red flag that cesspool i might have a problem right you're so and you don't think that the public city around this scheme even put the plaintiffs on a crate out is like wow i wonder if any of them had read anything about it then maybe yes but the plaintiffs all age and their complaint should be taken as stated that they they knew nothing they read nothing they had no awareness of a kickback having been part of their settlement until they got a letter from a lawyer but i thought the allegations that that went to whether they had actual notice that they had a claim that they didn't victimize not too but you're saying they actually allege i literally write nothing about and yet they actually alleges there was no way for them to have known points this is your current course decision it requires a firm is for three different reasons first equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances extraordinary circumstances do not exist here and that is because of the circumstances focuses not on what anybody actually knew but what was discoverable and that's what a district that does that go against supermarket case no your honor because this supermarket case fraudulent concealment is now i think the frightening concealment test and supermarket marlton is maybe a necessary but not sufficient way to meet the extraordinary circumstances test so you're saying it's not good law so that if you're saying the only thing you have to do is follow that genuine titles alleged scheme you had the family in case multiple amended complaints in fact and you had two separate enforcement actions by the c s p p and the maryland attorney general's office that any of those mentioned these particular franklin mention a number of the banks sure bank of cases and genuine title was a settlement agent for all of these cases and a genuine title was yes or no i'm sorry yeah but what basis is there for assuming that these people read the newspaper  watch television people get their information so many different ways to know families don't just sit down and watch the news six thirty i know right yeah it's about all by six thirty it's totally different understood so it seems to me w doing or possibly doing was saying well they should've read this in the paper they should've i mean anybody who's a reasonably informed first should have read this how could they not known it seems to me totally speculative and mr murphy saying going against the complaint and not crediting the allegations of the complaint with any any contrary information but supposition that necessarily any things were going on well that something's buried in the first section of the paper and it's not above the fold who's to say i mean if you're saying that's enough if it's in the newspaper when probably fifty percent of people don't even read the newspaper today it least in its in its caustic classic form how does how do you go about imposing his finding it due diligence after pleading stage why isn't this appropriate to let the partners develop the evidence in the case find out how much was really out there given the plaintiffs the opportunity to show really there wasn't a lot out there there was a little notice what was it used for just that it didn't resolve factual disputes there's no dispute that all of this information was out there the bars don't dispute that they were going nowhere in this case do we know we're in your honor papers yeah yeah there is it was in as again as i said below the fold on inside page they had here on the front page we don't know we don't know exactly where they did we know for instance if it was on c n n obviously it appeared on television and that's one of the sources that we don't know if it appeared on a saturday afternoon john when the orioles were playing as opposed to you know when nothing was going on in baltimore sure as i understand they are but again what at what people actually knew maybe that has some implication on the diligence side and we still submit that that's enough for inquiry no it's given all the information that was in this case but just bent point was that because all this information was out there it was discoverable it doesn't matter if these actual individual barros discovered it but  we're talking about extraordinary circumstances extraordinary circumstances say there has to have been something that the defendants were doing that actively lead plaintiffs would have prevented them from being able to find what was happening it was impossible for the nation you know they didn't put it on the good not hear on that we're sure i think what's required and we address this never what's required is that they say who the payments are going to the paper general title got the payments here there's no question about that that's what was listed on the settlement sheet so but again but the point  the plaintiffs misled how were they prevented from being able to find out what was going on you can't say that's the case here going back all the way to two thousand and twelve there was a case about genuine title phangan was in thirteen it was amended in fifteen you know you've got an awful lot of information out there and that people are able to discover and file their claims and the problem with borrowers position your honour's is that essentially is writing the statue of limitations out of respa and the cunningham case dealt with this similar it was a third circuit case dealt with a similar lawyer the intervention argument that was made and the cancun case says you can't do that you can't have a lawyer sitting around waiting to find the right plaintiff to bring a lawsuit because that  genuine title your honor they all say genuine title and the c f p being forced next to give you an evil specific example the individual mortgage broker that was miss miss edmonson's more his brother was named specifically in the c f p be action and the press release that came with it so far into the side the bank here two to answer now one the brumbaugh case talks about how inquiry notice is an object of legal standard that can be determined by a court as a matter of wot in this case because the facts necessary were there as part of the pleading stage both through appropriate for them taking a look at what judge bennett actually took judicial notice of he wasn't talking about the facts specific to these cases he was talking about the information that's out in the public that's capable of being discovered and when you're talking about whether or not this case is extraordinary circumstances or unique he says it can't be all this information is out there and that the creation of shell companies to follow the case backs is certainly an extraordinary circumstance as it is and that in other words the money that was being funneled illegally through the shell corporations and we have no way of knowing that we see if they estimate statement that says well money changed hands as a result of this transaction but there were these corporations that we have no have been discovered i think judge bet says the answer was there wasn't much there wasn't something that a reasonable darbar looking out there could find say their loan may have been a problem now fast forward that's three four years later it's a very different situation because you've got all this information out in the public that says there's a problem but eventually with your loan and therefore you can't have there's nothing concealed at that point it was a all out in the open it seems to me though that what your argument is almost the lending the inquiry noted an corporations that's outside their control and totally outside their ability to know but all of that information was out in the public very prominently since no later than the beginning of two thousand and fifteen long before the second series of cases was filed and they did not it wasn't because they stopped trying but for whatever reason the period during which there was kind of funneling concealment for purposes of equitable tolling had come to an end i need two thousand and fifteen i think that's right i think that's what judge been specifically says in the opinion he assumed without deciding that there was fraudulent concealment he said i don't even have to go there because under the extraordinary circumstances test they still don't need it i'm going to sue if there was fraudulent concealment but as of you know the first few months of two thousand and fifteen you can't possibly say anything was fraudulent concealed anymore because everything was out in the open which would mean that if that's right the clock started running in two thousand and fifteen yes your honor ok yes you are so and  the issue is that this series of cases didn't get found so that december two thousand and sixteen and then a number of different times throughout two thousand seventeen was long past a year from when all of this information was out in the open and clearly discoverable by the plaintiffs ok so  thank you your honor branch miles back for bank of america very briefly in my five minutes i'd like to address this extraordinary circumstances raise and judge harris like a paraphrase you the reason that extraordinary circumstances no longer existed starting in at least two thousand and fifteen is that there was no longer any concealment anything that assuming for the sake of argument had been concealed in the past was no longer consumed and i'd like to specifically address that point as to bank of america because yes trying to not just a lawsuit not just a lawsuit about genuine title but a lawsuit that actually named bank of america as a codefendant with genuine title and then bank of america was dismissed yes your honor bank of america was dismissed but it's important to actually d complaint and there are two paragraphs on that page that address erica parker who was the suppose it bank of america employee who was involved and the genuine title issues those are the only two paragraphs that address erica parker the rest of that page what you'll see is that banks america is was alleged to have multiple mortgage brokers who were involved in this scheme and what you also will not see on that page is anything saying that the two named plaintiffs who were bank of america borrowers are alleged to be bank america borrowers had only erica parker as their mortgage broker so the complaint in fame is not limited to just erika parker they complain concealment the problem is you did it with the statue of limitation by your wrongful conduct and a few of fraudulently concealing it how are the people to know so now we have a bank we won't be bound but you will be persuaded i'm confident because they they explain why even absent actual notice which we're not dealing with here even absent actual note of these security cases and i trust cases is not a securities investor who knows that his stock price went down and is wondering why and it's not a business that was put out of business by microsoft because they're of some collusion that you suspect these are people who closed on a real estate loan and have no idea that somebody paid a kickback to somebody else in connection with that transaction and there's no reason why they should know what the owner relevance of that is whether either bit you have an that i have something fraudulent occur in connection with my loan i'll look at my son statement and see if i see anything and they will see a thing because the kickback is not disclosed on the hundred one but it's an argument that there fargo that would cause joe homeowner who got his loan from first mariner bank to think i better start looking at something i better figure out what happened to me because he doesn't know he's been injured he has no notice that something wrong happened and you asked me earlier your honor about the complaint if you look at paragraphs eighty to eighty one of the bank of america complaint just as an example it's on jay want eighty three and one eighty four the planner specifically alleged that there was no disclosure made to them a result they did not have and could not have had any knowledge of the kickbacks during or after the settlement where that a portion of their payments to genuine title were illegally split with the lender through illegal take backs paid to