E. Bertita Trabert Graebner, individually v. WM. PAGE & ASSOCIATES, INC., a foreign corporation and WILLIAM SCOTT PAGE, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
E. BERTITA TRABERT GRAEBNER,
individually and as Trustee of the El Nora
L. Trabert Irrevocable Trust; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WM. PAGE & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
foreign corporation and WILLIAM
SCOTT PAGE, an individual,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16992
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01694-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 20, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: MELLOY,** IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Bertita Trabert Graebner, Tallie Trabert, and Vernon Trabert appeal the
district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants Wm. Page &
Associates, Inc. and William Scott Page (“the Page defendants”) on statute of
limitations grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Based on Tallie Trabert’s letter and email correspondence, there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that she was on inquiry notice in 2008 due to her
actual suspicion of fraud by the Page defendants. See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-
Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 807 (2005). Vernon Trabert and Bertita Graebner
were aware of facts that would place a reasonable person on inquiry, specifically
that Tallie Trabert suspected fraud and that their viatical investments had failed to
perform as promised, and therefore were also on inquiry notice. See Jolly v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103, 1110–11 (1988). Once the plaintiffs were on inquiry
notice, they were “charged with knowledge of facts that would have been
discovered” by a reasonable investigation, Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc., 210
Cal. App. 3d 915, 921 (1989), notwithstanding any reassurances made by the
Trabert family attorney, Michael James.
Although the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice in 2008, there is a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether they conducted a reasonable investigation and
what such an investigation would have revealed. A rational jury could conclude
2

-- 2 of 3 --

that a reasonable investigation would not have revealed that the Page defendants
knew or should have known of the problems in the viatical industry at the time
they induced the plaintiffs to make their investment. The only evidence in the
record on this point is an excerpt from a 1998 book on the viatical industry, which
in turn cited a handful of additional public sources. Viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs, this evidence is insufficient to establish that the
plaintiffs’ causes of action accrued more than three years before they filed this suit.
See, e.g., Tucker v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 158 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1998);
Cal. Code Civ. P. § 338(d).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --