Lawrence G. Brown v. Shimano Industrial Company, Ltd.

960 F.2d 152 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lawrence G. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHIMANO INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-55075. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1992. Decided April 21, 1992. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and JAMES R. BROWNING and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Lawrence Brown appeals from a summary judgment on his claims for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets. He argues that the district court erred in holding that his claims were barred by statutes of limitations. On review of a summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists precluding judgment as a matter of law. Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 873 F.2d 1338, 1339-40 (9th Cir.1989). We conclude here that material issues of fact exist and reverse. DISCUSSION I.…