Jury must decide if securities fraud plaintiff placed on inquiry notice
In Betz v. Trainer Wortham, the Ninth Circuit made small amendments to the previous opinion, in which the three panel court had held that a jury must decide whether a securities fraud plaintiff was put on inquiry notice of fraud long enough before she filed suit for the statute of limitations to have run. With such amendments, the motion for en banc rehearing is denied. Judge Kozinski writes a stinging dissent from that denial, noting that the Court places itself in “left field again”—that is, alone among all the appellate circuits—by requiring a jury to determine whether the investor was placed on inquiry notice where the facts are undisputed. Noting here that the investor claims she had been promised zero risk on her investment, yet understood statements showing a decrease in her principal, Kozinski argues that as a matter of law, she was placed on sufficient inquiry notice to start the running of the statute.
