Pincay

Pincay v. Andrews

Good Law
238 F.3d 1106·2000 WL 33153169·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1553
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 6, 2001Nos. 98-55217, 98-55288, 98-55449California2,307 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute of limitations begins to run, as a matter of law, upon receipt of written disclosure of the alleged injury.

I

Lafitt Pincay and Christopher McCar-ron are professional horse racing jockeys who have been inducted into the sport’s Hall of Fame. Vincent Andrews (“Vincent”), Robert Andrews (“Robert”), and their company, Vincent Andrews Management Corporation (“VAMC”) (collectively “Andrews”), are investment advisors whom both Pincay and McCarron retained between 1969 and 1988.

Pincay began investing the earnings from his racehorse riding in 1967, when he orally employed Vincent’s father, also named Vincent Andrews, to manage his financial affairs for- a flat fee of 5% of his annual income. Pincay orally continued this arrangement in 1969, including the 5% flat fee, when Vincent took over his father’s business and formed VAMC. In 1972, Vincent’s brother, Robert, joined VAMC. Pincay’s arrangement with VAMC called for the firm to handle Pin-cay’s financial, accounting, and tax matters. McCarron orally entered into the same arrangement with VAMC, including the 5% flat fee, beginning in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.