case on other grounds so the government should turn square corners in dealing with the people this case is a case about the government not turning square corners with the since any of banks but this appeal specifically is about utah is rather confusing equitable discovery rule on tolling of statute of limitations and it's using i'll get into the case law in a minute essentially the theory of the state and the district court is at any time a lay person gets a order of the court affecting their rights in a way that hurts them and that order is sealed the person is in most is supposed to immediately lawyer up immediately believe that there was something done wrong in the state district court and fight tooth and nail and if they don't do that immediately immediately presume that the government has acted in bad faith through the court system then they are going to manage i don't know how media that has to be it has to be right and the statute of limitations right if that's correct your  president of whack and he had been as others involved in the bank's management had been warned that the bank was insolvent and they were looking at causing absolutely sure how well they knew this train was probably i believe that they did not have a duty to inquire to that it jerk very reasonable jury could have found that they did not have a duty to inquire given that the court's filings were sealed given that the paperwork that was in front of them was taken away from them once they signed the notice of acknowledgement setter so yes your heart was that was the president or other six persons involved and thank management aware of where the documents were that were question that they would have found that the fog was sealed they wouldn't have found the field file it was supposed to have been opened on its own three days later supposed to have been sealed and the reason they wouldn't have found that is because the fight itself that it was supposed to be unsealed was sealed so what they're being faulted for is not knowing what they didn't know because they couldn't know because it was sealed but here are let me be clear could under these facts have found that my clients failed to exercise reasonable diligence and were not in fact disabled i will absolutely one hundred percent agree with you that a court the jury could have found that as a matter of fact but all of us who have tried cases that a reasonable jury can do things that we don't expect them to do anyone who's tried a case who didn't think they could lose it but actually lost it when it meant didn't think they could win it going again hasn't tried enough cases so to say that no reasonable juror remember that's the standard say that no reasonable jury could have found that we exercise that you're speaking of this is not it's motion to dismiss it's a motion for summary judgment absolutely i understand that your honor and what i'm asking you to do is take a look at the reverse case sort of the case that you just heard a minute ago assume for the moment the judge shelby had ruled the other way the district court had ruled and let us go to trial assume for the moment that we put on our best case which is what we're entitled to put on which were in time to have the district court believe up front soon we put on our best case assume that a reasonable jury had found that we were in fact is they able and hadn't slept on our rights assume those things assume that just shelby had denied a motion for jay and ovi were a motion for new trial and we were in front of you with the state claiming that the court shouldn't have allowed the evidence shouldn't have allowed it to go forward and that the jury was per se wrong in making it findings that we in fact were disabled and did our best you know better than i do because this is what you see all the time the standard of review on overturning a judge's refusal to grant a j n o v or a motion for a new trial it's extremely hard in this case should have gone to the jury i'm not claiming and would would be crazy to claim that a jury couldn't have found the other way absolutely the state can make a very good believe so your honor because this is the utah supreme court applying the law that we've we've talked about here basically says that the questions until an equitable tolling is a in this is the miers case is a balancing test of harm to the question is what evidence do we have a disability we showed that the testimony was that in two thousand and fourteen michael has as soon as they found out from a whistleblower at the f b i say that there had when when did your client find out that the documents were sealed through a hearsay source from going to the court and someone at the court saying that seal i don't have evidence on the question when they went to the court inappropriately until they were told that they had acted inappropriately by the whistleblower well i mean did your clients agree at the time that their bank should be taken away from them of course on ok i mean so i mean if you're of the position that this is unjust proceeding in the st place they were represented at the time and they believe that their bank shouldn't have been taken away i mean doesn't that put them in a position to go to the go to the court right then to see what's being said about them your honor i won't dispute that my clients could have done things differently i'm not going to dispute that i'm going to we're trying to figure out from an equitable standpoint what they should have done and what he sort of you know brings up a reason and what they have to do to me to get equity is they have to have we miss our we didn't get it we wouldn't have gotten it because there is a factual issue the question isn't whether we could have won or could have lost the question is could a reasonable jury have done it on a question of fact and if you take a look at the facts the facts are that my clients were shell shocked when they when they were literally stormed with armed guards their bank was taken away from them they have a court order authoriz you're right i assume they could have gone in and fought hard the question isn't whether they could have fought harder and that's what i said right at the start when judge briscoe asked her my point was that given the facts at the time but is my client being faulted for not immediately or even four years loitering up and and assuming that a district court in the state of utah had done something so wrong as to be a nine done nothing to satisfy its statutory burden under utah law to seize the bank it was the star chamber proceeding basically the state says we win judge the judge says ok you win it's ex parte many of the legal standards that are required to state law seizure of the bank weren't even attempted to be met the state did nothing to meet its burden at the district court except  o s the norm in this situation absolutely one hundred but they have to comply with statutory grounds in the documents that we subsequently understood discovered indicated that the state did nothing to meet the statutory grounds for taking over the bank except to say we meet the standards for taking over the bank judge we don't really put oh you haven't they did nothing and we didn't know that and couldn't have known that until the files were open necessarily i mean your whether the state satisfied its burden in front of the court when how this how does that get you in one thousand nine hundred and three class well that's a different issue your honor and i can tell you we have a parallel case for another bank that no d reasonable juror could have found that this plaintiffs had acted reasonably that they basically slept on their rights and if you look at page fifteen of their opening brief their own time line now on appeal they jump from shortly after the make a seized to four years later with this happenstance meeting on the ski lift i mean really if you take their argument to the logical extreme that discussion on the ski lift could happen twenty years later and yet they still get around all statue  just because some happenstance meeting on a ski lift triggers additional so st of all i don't think that that argument should carry the day they have to meet their national burden to show that any initial of the plaintiffs even more action rather than sleeping on the rights for four years so they slip on their rights and that's what the utah supreme court cases talk about we're not going to allow equitable tolling to rescue a plaintiff who on the reasonable eat sleeps on their rights we believe the district court correctly assessed all the undisputed record evidence and as a matter of law determine that no reasonable juror could have concluded otherwise this was no surprise to the bank in two thousand and nineteen they stipulated to a cease and desist letter on this very issue under capitalization there are some serious problems with this bank and then again in january just before the bank was seized two months before the in the department financial institutions comes and closes your back in march of two thousand and ten if you believe that they were wrong you were right don't you do something about it why would you capitulate why would you do nothing so the record speculation but perhaps of a ministerial error on the part of the nd district court just slipped through the cracks or whatever we don't we don't really know but by its own terms of zone supposed d to be sealed for three days and that very limited time period was for a very discreet reason and that's  bank you do this on a friday afternoon so people don't run you know the court can take your dish most of the problems that are on a bank can cost but it's only still for three days let the f b i see take over receivership and then the bank is over the the closure that they were given notice they signed clint williams a present the bank signed receipt of service signed that's actual notice and we're going to just throw out actual notice and let that stand in limbo for years  so they received actual notice of that the note the notices in addition to that even if you shellshocked in and we're going to let him be relieved of his own signature there were notices placed on all the branch the worse the set the nd district court has authorized closure that meant they knew the court to go to they could have gone and they should have gone if they really believed the f d i c was wrong and the department of financial institutions was wrong and that they were there was not an ad under capitalization probably existing for months and with counsel we think it's it would be a disservice to the echo tolling case law to allow them to sleep on their rights with counsel and basically indefinitely suspend the statements made that they had counsel they actually said they hired an attorney after the closure of the bank who went to the bank after the closure to try to obtain more information  the specific documents the documents notice he said well there are best and when he was asked what you mean when you said you caught they confiscated this kind of military force comes in and takes over your bank tyrannically what did they say he said well it it was on the desk and i was told i could come back and get my person belongs but it didn't his personal assistant told him that if the if you can go back so i don't want to go back just bad memories i don't want to go back he chose not to go back to get everything the documents he left on his desk his personal belongings you know it goes on it made his deposition about his his personal photos and this is other pressure on his but he did not go back he turned a blind eye did not go back and i don't think he should benefit by be able to seizure was not only given that is the notice that told him that he had he could go to this particular court noticed i'd need to seek judicial relief that notice wasn't only a document or was  is legal notice sufficient to have placed them on notice of where they could go if they had conducted any due diligence instead of sitting on their rights for four years the district court correctly applied the undisputed record of evidence to this case and was correct and if there are no further questions we will submit it would counsel accept the notion of your time and mr barrett how some rebuttal thank your honour's appreciate mr peterson's argument the trouble is that the notice of seizure and the notice on the doors is not the same thing as notice that there was a d when was the duty of inquiry triggered your the duty of inquiry i think is a factual question your honor that a jury could determine again there is no argument that my clients could have done more questions not when they could have done more the question is whether they're going to be penalize and by summary judgment for not having done what someone else would have done which your honor may have done what i may have done i was not counsel for the bank at the time i may have done things differently but when the documents are confiscated from mr a from the the a bank officer and that's in the record it appendix seventy base documents of the seizure or you had read them on the door of the bank that's not the same thing as being able to see the c e o far out where the inappropriate conduct of the court and of state was buried and without my time has expired to be happy to take any more questions if the court wants to ask him i want to i have only one question are you going monorail no your honor that's my house in costa rica behind me the little white things my house in costa rica are you there next which i can't now i wish i were your other but they won't they won't let people from utah with rising cases in there i'm trying my best to get there you're on well thank you you made me feel better i thought you were someplace wonderful your honor i really wish i were i wish i had my swim shorts underneath a suit and tie but unfortunately i'm i'm in the same predicament that we all are at the moment you know fifteen years ago i was in london getting off a train to make a phone call and i stepped off the train and a woman was struggling to get her suitcase on the train and she looked up at me and i helped her with the suitcase there's a woman i had a blind