Iowa law imposes a five-year statute of limitations on claims based on unwritten contracts, injuries to property, fraud and other actions not otherwise specified. See Iowa Code § 614.1, subsections (4) and (5). Since October of 2008 was the last time Plaintiffs had funds in their accounts, that must have been the last day anyone could have been enriched at their expense. Therefore, Claim XXII must also be dismissed.

Finally, states also diverge on the statutes of limitations for warranty claims. For example, Colorado has a three year limitations period for warranty actions (both express and implied), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 4-2- 725, 13-80-101(a), Wisconsin’s is six years (both express and implied), Wis. Stat. § 402.725, California’s is four years (both express and implied), Cal. Com. Code § 2725, and Iowa’s is five years for implied warranties and ten years for express warranties, Iowa Code Ann. §§ 614.1(4), (5). Thus, a class member who purchased the Products between 2012 and 2013 may or may not be able to recover at all, depending on which state’s law applies.

A similar statute applies under Iowa too, making the claim timely under a 5 year Statute of Limitations plus tolling based on the Disclosure Rule. See Iowa Code 614.1(4)(based on unwritten contracts); Skadburgv. Gately, 911 N.W. 2d 786, 791 (Sup. Ct. Iowa, 2018.) Therefore, since Paul Thomas's representation of Plaintiffs ended at the earliest sometime in 2012, the claim is timely since the Second Amended Complaint was interposed in 2017, less than 6 years after the breach.

Case 1:16-cv-05508-VSB Document 225 Filed 09/28/18 Page 6 of 34 Page United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 101 S. Ct. 2524(1981) ............................................................... 19 Vincent v. The Money Store 915 F. Supp.2d 553 (S.D.N.Y.2013) ................................................................ .2 Vossoughi v. Polaschek, 859 N.W.2d 643 (S.Ct. Iowa 2015) ............................................................. .2,.3 Zorn v. Gilbert, 8 N.Y.3d 933 (2007) ................................................... ; ....... · .................................. 8 Zumpano v. Quinn, 6 N.Y.3d 666 (2006) .......................................................................................... 10 Statutes 18 U.S.C.§1961 etseq .............................................................................................. 17, 18 18 U.S.C. §1964(C) ...................................................................................................... 18 Iowa Code § 614.1 ( 4 )(20 16) ........................................................................................... 2 Rules CME Rule 930 .............................................................................................................. 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 ...................................................................... 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9 ..................................................................... .25 Federal Rules of Civil Pocudure Rule 9(b) ............................................................ .23,.24 N.Y.C.P.L.R. §202 ....................................................................................... 1,.2,15,16,17 N.Y.C.P.L.R. §214(6) ........................................................................................... 2,5,6,9 -vi- Case 1:16-cv-05508-VSB Document 225 Filed 09/28/18 Page 7 of 34 Page Miscellaneous Defendants' Memorandum of Law Doc.# 205 ...................................

A similar statute applies under Iowa too, making the claim timely under a 5 year Statute of Limitations plus tolling based on the Disclosure Rule. See Iowa Code 614.1(4)(based on unwritten contracts);Skadburg v. Gately, ~11 N.W. 2d 786, 791 (Sup. Ct. Iowa, 2018.) Therefore, since Paul Thomas's representation of Plaintiffs ended at the earliest sometime in 2012, the claim is timely since the Second Amended Complaint was interposed in 2017, less than 6 years after the breach.