Tanaka v. First Hawaiian Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that plaintiffs’ 13 knowledge of fraud and knowledge of injury is disputed question of fact precluding 14 summary judgment of civil RICO claims based on statute of limitations defense
• noting equitable tolling only applies when “the plaintiff shows that he neither knew, nor in the exercise of due diligence, could reasonably have known of the offense”
• stating “‘a civil RICO cause of action arises when the plaintiff knows or should know that [he] has been injured’” (alteration in Tanaka) (quoting Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 512 (9th Cir. 1996))
• “The focus is on the ‘injury,’ not on the predicate acts and not on the fraud.”
• “Even if Plaintiffs RICO claims are otherwise barred, equitable tolling could still save the claims.”
• “Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the fraud, as with knowledge of the injury, is a question of fact for purposes of the tolling question.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).