Behrens v. US Bank, NA, 792 F.Supp.3d 902

Plaintiffs (the Behrens and Sheffert families) invested with Peregrine Financial Group (PFG) from 2007–2008, suffering losses in October 2008 when their accounts were wiped out.
They pursued arbitration claims before the National Futures Association in 2009 but received no recovery.
In July 2012, after PFG’s CEO admitted to fraud, class actions were filed against U.S. Bank and JPMorgan; Plaintiffs were initially included but ultimately decertified due to the timing of their losses.
In 2016, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Southern District of New York, which was dismissed as untimely; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Plaintiffs then filed the present action in the Northern District of Iowa, asserting various state law claims against banks and financial exchanges.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata and statute of limitations bars.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Res Judicata	Claims not barred because prior dismissal was without prejudice and not on the merits of state law claims.	All related claims should have been brought if CAFA (federal diversity) jurisdiction was available; new action is precluded.	Dismissed: claims precluded by res judicata due to available federal jurisdiction in prior case.
Statute of Limitations	Claims accrued in 2012 (awareness of fraud); sought tolling and savings statute; argued continued investigation delayed accrual.	Claims accrued in 2008 when losses occurred; five-year limit expired well before suit; tolling inapplicable.	Dismissed: claims time-barred, accrual began with 2008 losses; tolling arguments rejected.
Class Action Tolling	American Pipe/cross-jurisdictional tolling should apply from 2012 class action; savings statute applies.	Tolling not available due to different subject matter, lack of class membership, and successive class actions not allowed; savings statute inapplicable.	Dismissed: tolling doctrines do not save claims.
Equitable Tolling / Estoppel	Fraudulent concealment by defendants or misleading advice from attorney delayed suit.	No false representation or concealment; denials of liability do not suffice.	Dismissed: no basis for equitable tolling.

American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for class members—individual suits only, not successive class actions)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (tolling for putative class members to bring individual suits, not new class actions)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (set forth modern rules for claim and issue preclusion)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (explained claim and issue preclusion doctrines)
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 590 U.S. 405 (claim preclusion covers issues that could have been raised previously)
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 584 U.S. 732 (American Pipe does not allow successive class actions after a statute of limitations expires)
Hallett Const. Co. v. Meister, 713 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa discovery rule for accrual of limitations)
Benskin, Inc. v. West Bank, 952 N.W.2d 292 (limitations period starts upon knowledge of prima facie case)
Sautter v. Interstate Power Co., 563 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa’s savings statute requirements)