17-16693
9th Cir.Feb 6, 2019Background
- Former NFL players and one estate sued the NFL alleging a "return-to-play" scheme: players were given numerous medications and pressured to continue playing despite injuries.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint in November 2016 to add a civil RICO claim alleging a pattern of fraudulent conduct by defendants.
- The district court dismissed the RICO claim as time barred and entered final judgment; plaintiffs appealed.
- The latest-plaintiff’s NFL career ended in 2004 (Jerry Wunsch); plaintiffs argued RICO accrued in March 2014 when they discovered the fraud.
- Plaintiffs also argued equitable tolling based on fraudulent concealment by team doctors and trainers; district court rejected tolling and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a civil RICO claim accrue? | Accrual deferred until plaintiffs discovered the defendants’ fraudulent scheme (March 2014). | Accrual runs from discovery of the injury (careers cut short) when careers ended. | Accrual begins on discovery of the injury; plaintiffs’ RICO claim accrued by 2004 and expired by 2008. |
| Is the “injury and pattern discovery” rule controlling? | Plaintiffs relied on injury-plus-pattern discovery rule to delay accrual. | Supreme Court’s Rotella rejects that rule; only injury discovery matters. | Rotella controls; injury discovery starts the limitations clock. |
| Does Living Designs change accrual rule here? | Living Designs supports accrual upon knowledge of fraud where injury was not known until fraud discovered. | Living Designs is distinguishable because plaintiffs here knew their injury when careers ended. | Living Designs is inapplicable; accrual still follows injury discovery. |
| Is equitable tolling warranted for fraudulent concealment? | Tolling warranted because doctors/trainers passively concealed facts and plaintiffs were misled. | Plaintiffs failed to plead active misleading or due diligence with particularity; facts show plaintiffs knew relevant details. | Tolling denied: plaintiffs did not plead particularized active concealment or due diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (Sup. Ct.) (accrual of civil RICO claim begins with discovery of injury, not discovery of pattern or fraud)
- Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir.) (adopts injury-discovery rule for civil RICO accrual)
- Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.) (notes Rotella left the injury-discovery rule intact)
- Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir.) (accrual tied to discovery of fraud where injury is the fraudulent inducement itself)
AFFIRMED.