Case Name: George HORNBERGER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., Delaware Corporation; Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-31
Citations: 677 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 15-55249
Parties: George HORNBERGER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., Delaware Corporation; Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
George HORNBERGER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., Delaware Corporation; Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55249
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 13, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed January 31, 2017
Christopher Campbell Cianci, Attorney, Daniel E. Park Law Corporation, Los An-geles, CA, Daniel E. Park, Park & Sylva, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Benjamin White, White & Woods LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Kevin J. Woods, Counsel, White & Woods LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: TROTT, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
After reading the briefs, listening to oral argument, and examining the record, we conclude that Hornberger's questionable claims involving "Japanese Yen Notes," which he alleges had a value in 2000 of $2 billion, are barred by the applicable state statutes of limitation, the most generous of which is four years. Our conclusion also covers his request for an accounting. The document from Merrill Lynch faxed to Hornberger by William Meadows on March 18, 2002 put Hornberger on actual notice that Merrill Lynch had not monetized the notes, could not verify their validity, and wanted "no responsibility" for them. Moreover, Hornberger knew that Meadows had asked Merrill Lynch to return the notes. We agree with the district court that Hornberger's failure to take any legal action on this matter until November 19, 2013 was not excused by either the discovery rule, equitable estoppel, or equitable tolling.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.