Rosenshein v. Meshel, 688 F. App'x 60

Plaintiff Arnold Rosenshein, a real estate investor, sued multiple defendants under RICO and state law claiming they fraudulently induced him to purchase interests in high‑risk commercial loans by misrepresenting them as low‑risk.
Rosenshein alleged he invested in several loan participations between 2006–2008 and later suffered losses when borrowers defaulted and foreclosures occurred through 2011.
The participation and servicing agreements (attached to the complaint) allegedly left Rosenshein with no contractual rights to control loans, pursue remedies, or obtain recorded security for most investments; one agreement (the “24th Street” agreement) covered only that specific investment and still gave control to the Lead Lender.
District court dismissed Rosenshein’s federal RICO claims as time‑barred and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Rosenshein appealed.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether Rosenshein’s RICO claims accrued and when inquiry or actual notice (triggering the four‑year limitations period) occurred, and whether equitable tolling applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did Rosenshein’s RICO injury accrue?	Injury occurred upon later foreclosures (2011), not at investment.	Injury accrued at time of each investment because plaintiff had no contractual remedies or control.	Accrual occurred at time of investment (by 2008); foreclosure timing irrelevant.
When did the statute of limitations begin to run (notice)?	Plaintiff lacked notice until foreclosures revealed losses.	Storm warnings (defaults, protracted foreclosures, failed sales) gave inquiry notice earlier.	Inquiry notice was triggered by 2009 events; suit filed 2015 was untimely.
Do later foreclosures create new, separate accruals?	Foreclosures were new, independent injuries restarting limitations.	Foreclosures were symptoms of the original investment injury, not new injuries.	Multiple foreclosures were not new independent injuries; separate‑accrual rule inapplicable.
Is equitable tolling available due to defendants’ alleged concealment?	Defendants fraudulently concealed facts, preventing discovery within limitations.	Plaintiff failed to exercise diligence despite storm warnings; concealment does not excuse lack of inquiry.	No equitable tolling: plaintiff did not diligently investigate; concealment did not prevent discovery.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Quicken Loans Inc., 810 F.3d 861 (2d Cir.) (standards for reviewing statute‑of‑limitations dismissal)
Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (four‑year RICO limitations period and ‘‘storm warnings’’/inquiry notice doctrine)
In re Merrill Lynch Ltd. P’ships Litig., 154 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (accrual rule for investment injuries and separate‑accrual doctrine)
First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763 (2d Cir.) (RICO injury when damages become clear and definite)
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir.) (discussion of accrual principles in RICO context)
Barrows v. Burwell, 777 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.) (treating verified complaint allegations as true on review)
Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (limits on accepting complaint allegations contradicted by attached exhibits)
Cohen v. S.A.C. Trading Corp., 711 F.3d 353 (2d Cir.) (inquiry notice triggered by information directly related to alleged misrepresentations)
Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir.) (fraudulent concealment does not eliminate plaintiff’s duty of diligence)
New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. v. IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., 497 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims fail)