N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
E. B ER TITA TR

AB ER T GR

AEB NER , individually

and a s Truste e of the El Nora L. Tra b e rt Irre voc a

ble Trust; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. W M . PAGE & ASSOC IATES, INC ., a fore i gn c orporation a

nd W ILLIAM SC OTT PAGE, a

n individual, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16992 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01694-WHA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m H
. Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, * * IKUTA, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED
DEC 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.B e rtita Tra be rt Gra e bne r, Ta llie Tra

be rt, a nd Ve rnon Tra

be rt a p pe a l the distric t c o urt’ s e n t

ry of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda

nts W m . Pa ge & Assoc iat e s, Inc . a

n d W illia m Sc ott Pa ge (“ the Pa g e de fe n da nts” ) on sta

tute of lim ita tions grounds. We have j urisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B a se d on Ta llie Tra

b e rt’ s le tte r and e m a il c orre s ponde nc e , the re is no ge nuine d ispute of m ate ria l fa c t tha t she wa s on inquiry

notic e in 2008 due to he r
a c tua l suspic ion of fra

ud by the Pa ge de fe nda

nts. Se e Fox

v . Ethic o n EndoSurge r y , Inc
. , 35 C a l. 4th 797, 807 (2005). Ve rnon Tra be rt a nd B e rtita Gra e bne r
we re aware of fa c t s tha

t would pla c e a

re a sona ble pe rson on inquiry , spe c ific a lly that Ta llie Tra

be rt suspe c te d fra

ud a nd tha t the ir via t ic a l inve s tm e nts ha d fa ile d to pe rform a s prom ise d, a

nd the re fore we re a lso on inquiry notic e . Se e J

olly v . Eli Lilly & C o. , 44 C a l. 3d 1103, 1110–11 (1988). Onc e the pla intiffs we re on inquiry notic e , the y

we re “ c ha

rge d with knowle dge of fa c ts tha t would ha ve be e n disc ove re d” by

a re a sona ble inve stiga

tion, Le e v . Esc row

C onsultants, Inc

. , 210 C a l. App. 3d 915, 921 (1989), notwithsta nding a ny re a ssura nc e s m a de by

the Tra be rt fa m ily attorne y , M ic ha e l Ja

m e s. Although the pla intiffs we re on inquiry notic e in 2008, there is a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the y c o nduc te d a

re a sona b le inve stiga

t ion a nd what suc h a

n inve stiga

tion would ha

ve re ve a le d. A rationa l jury c ould c onc lude 2that

a re a sona ble inve stiga

tion would not ha

ve re ve a le d tha

t the Pa ge de fe nda

nts kne w or should ha

ve known of theproble m s in the via tic a l industry

at the tim e the y induc e d the pla intiffs to make the ir inve stm e n t. The only e v ide nc e in the
re c o rd on this point is a

n e xc e rpt from

a 1998 book on the viatic a l industry , whic h in turn c ite d a

ha ndful of a dditional public sourc e s. Vie we d in thelight m o st favora ble to the pla i ntiffs, this evide nc e is insuffic ie nt to e sta blish tha t the pla i ntiffs’ c a

use s of a c tion a c c rue d m ore tha n thre e y e ars be fore the y file d this suit. Se e , e .g. , Tuc k

e r v . Bax te r

He althc areC

orp. , 158 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th C ir. 1998); C a l. C ode C iv. P. § 338(d). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D
.

3