the first thing i'd like to discuss is the trial court's error in dismissing the probate code accounting claim in the business and professions code section sixty ninety one claim we've introduced in our brief and before the district court since ample supreme court california supreme court holdings that say and a duty to account by a trustee does not have a statute of limitations and it's only where the trustee repudiates the trust that the beneficiary is required to act there's nothing in the record here in our complaint that mr  and that makes sense even even after his days estate has not been closed he was never there's nothing in the record in the complaint saying that the estate was closed but yes even hypothetically your honor even when  trustee says ok we've said i have i've had twenty pieces of property i've given you a check saying you've got your share i give you no accounting and i've sold the last piece of property i get no county ever california supreme court law is when the trustee repudiates his trust or technically i guess if you had notice that your trustee is stealing from you his secretary sends a letter anonymously and says you know what twenty years ago when he said he paid you everything he owed you he was really ripping you off by taking pain as the wife's attorney's fees in their divorce proceeding out of the corpus and claiming it was really legitimate attorney's fees pass if he doesn't so which way they should cut when you have a trustee who's stealing money into sex successfully hides it does he get a free pass because he's been able to hide it for twenty years does that make  be able to avoid the statute of limitations for an accounting claims brought against an attorney i mean i think i read your ass well if the attorney is it let's forget that label of attorney trustee mr gerardi was a trustee the money went into his operating ago but it here the money was put in into his trust account so he clearly was a trustee so the issue is when you have a trustee who's stealing from his beneficiaries when does that cause of action the two issues for the fraud for the stealing when does it accrue it accrues when you have notice that's the classic discovery statute when it when that fishery has noticed effects that puts him on a reasonable person would believe that his trustee is stealing from him there was we don't have that there's a fraud action in two thousand and one and you represented other people in two thousand and eight right but i didn't represent mr cranitch at the time in the fact that there was a friday action two thousand and one mr drove the concealed that from my client he never told them about that action he was his attorney at the time he was getting sued and he did not in violation of his trustee do to  probate accounting so that's that's a totally separate issue because under the probate code you're entitled to one county and in britain this can be contradictory to the and in britain the britain court never explained and counsel for the fed she's me defendant in this case never explained how the fact that a retired judges involvement would put a client  request for the county and that that was not present but i think if you again if you look at the burton opinion take a look at that all they say is well you knew you were signing a settlement agreement that put you on notice that your turn was stealing from you makes no sense you knew they retired judge was allocating between the participating plaintiffs and you know you get x you get y how does that fact put the client on notice that mr drug he's taking excessive fees and costs it doesn't all in the bring court doesn't explain that so you have the britain court saying that this puts you on notice but doesn't explain how and it's totally illogical and in it please the court martin buchanan appearing for the a pelleas it seems to me what what is going on here is that mr dionne kingdom is trying to relay to get the same issues that he's lost in prior cases in the california court of appeal and he is essentially trying to get this court to decide that the california courts got california law all wrong he's argued in his briefs and again this morning that the published decision in britain was wrongly decided he's argued in his briefs that the unpublished decision versus gerardi was also wrongly decided and that of course is a case that's on all fours with this case the problem for mr dionne kingdom is and it's really not a question of whether the court finds britain persuasive the rule in this circuit is that this court will follow the california court of appeal decisions interpret in california law unless there is persuasive evidence that the california supreme court would reject those holdings here there's no persuasive evidence that the california supreme court would reject britain or gutierrez in fact mr dionne candombe filed a petition for review to the california supreme court in britain that was denied without a single vote to grant he filed another petition for review to the california supreme court in gutierrez that was also denied without a single vote to grant and in those petitions he made exactly the same arguments that he's making today as to why britain was allegedly wrongly decided as to why it was allegedly inconsistent with prakash milan so this court essentially is bound to follow the california court of appeal decisions interpret in california law and if britain and gutierrez were directly decided then there is nothing left here britain gutierrez was a case and i realize that it's an unpublished decision but the court can look to unpublished decision in the chair unpublished california decisions in determining california law on this one is particularly persuasive because it is exactly the identical same case as this case with a different plaintiff same underlying lockheed litigation same underlying facts in gutierrez as in this case the last settlement went out in two thousand and one the plaintiff claims were dismissed in two thousand and two exactly the same as what occurred with mr cranitch exact same allegations of wrongdoing against mr gerardi the only difference between the good cherice case and this case is that mr cheras filed his claims in two thousand and eight seven years after his his case locky case was dismissed and mr cranitch filed his case in two thousand and sixteen fifteen years after than falsified accounting well i think that puts him that puts him on notice that that puts him on notice that perhaps something wrong has been done and the whole time i notice that there are no accounting correct and that that's really kind of the basis for britain in and they could share his case is that if you have knowledge that basically allegations in this case i received settlement checks and no explanation of of how they were calculated or what costs  fees were were withheld and in addition to that i knew that i there were presiding judges who were presiding over the settlement allocation i knew i had a right to a hearing before those judges i was given an opportunity a personal meeting with one of those judges if i'm being asked to accept these settlement checks with no explanation whatsoever then i'm in on inquiry notice to at least go through that procedure and acquire through the mechanism that's been made available these retired judges and inquire as to what the basis was for these checks that i'm receiving mr cranitch was only too happy to accept these checks back in one thousand nine hundred ninety two through two thousand and one knowing that he didn't have the information that he now complains he didn't have he had a right to demand an accounting back in two thousand and one when the last settlement check was issued in fact the duty of an attorney to provide an accounting is not even dependent on a demand th duty to provide an accounting was back in two thousand and one and prakash fell on his very clear that the statute of limitations for an accounting under their probate code begins to run when the duty of accounting arises for cash milan in a in a sentence that was quoted by the district court explicitly says with respect to trust accounts probate code section one six four six zero applies duty to provide an accounting to a beneficiary and provides a three year limitations period that is triggered by the trustees accounting duty so yes this under  section three forty point six are the six sixteen or sixty or neither i don't i don't think it matters either way that the duty of an accounting arose no later than two thousand and one so where the you apply the three year probate code provision or the maximum four year under the c c p the claim is barred our contention is it is a claim that arise out of a rise out of a professional obligation and under lever says hanley which is the california supreme court's decision that would be governed by three forty point six but again it doesn't matter either way the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and the argument that that there is simply no statute of limitations for an accounting claim and somebody can wait decades after the fact to demand an accounting from an attorney decades after the ethical obligation to preserve the accounting records has long since evaporated that was explicitly rejected  that the continuing trust cases that counsel cites are not applicable to a situation where an attorney receives settlement funds disperses the settlement funds and then the it's no longer a continuing trust gutierrez stated there is nothing like that in this case which involves an attorney's distributions of settlement proceeds during a finite period of time an unlimited statute of limitations would make no sense under these circumstances so there is no california supreme court decision that council can point to that shows that that that decision on california law by the california court of appeal is an incorrect application of california law so and it does make sense that you can't wait indefinitely after the duty to preserve accounting records has evaporated and then suddenly decades later insist on an accounting the other point that i want to briefly go over is that the good is court accepted the argument that we've made in this case as well which is with respect to the end serious action back in two thousand and one where essentially the same fod claims were made against the jury firm  also by mr larsen mr larsen was co counsel and the court of appeal and to chair as concluded mr larson was mr cranitch as agent in the lockheed litigation it's undisputed that mr larson knew of those allegations of misconduct directed against mr dreier back in two thousand and one and under the doctrine of imputed knowledge mr larson's knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing is conclusively imputed to cranitch the principal under the principal agent relationship now that decision again an application of california law by the terrorist court is perfectly consistent with all california authorities on the doctrine of imputed knowledge as it applies generally and as it applies to the statute of limitations we've argued that same point in our brief so the fact that that he did not have he claims he did not have actual knowledge of that two thousand and one fraud claim is really neither here nor that nor there because his principal mr larson had knowledge of those fraud allegations back in two thousand and one and that knowledge is imputed to him so the district court correctly ruled that mr cranitch was on inquiry notice of his claims no later than two thousand and one under any conceivable statute of limitations he can't wait fifteen years after two thousand and one to bring this action and therefore all briefly with respect to the sixteen for sixty probate code statue limitations that only applies by its terms to claims for wrongful conduct it does not apply by its terms to the right for an accounting in fact counsel saying that unpublished decision of which has no presidential value is consistent with california law as to the right when you can have a county and that's absolutely not true the california supreme court in r state held the obligation of a trustee to account is a continuing duty and the beneficiaries right to demand an accounting runs with that duty and may be asserted so long as that duty remains and performed the trust for twenty right yes ok i guess money that's that's correct that's when we ask for it now through this whole imputation of mr larson's knowledge has no application because mr larsen was never mr larsen was ever retained by mr cranitch to do anything with respect to go with yours so you can impute something when it's outside the scope of their agency mr larsen was retained to pursue the chemical company defendants not to an adverse agent such as mr gerardi and mr larsen who admittedly concealed his knowledge from his own quiet about gerardi that does not compute because otherwise you could always say well my agent knew