Accordingly, where claims belong to the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy trustee must bring such claims before the later of (1) the end of the applicable limitations period, or (2) two years after the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition was filed. See 11 U.S.C. § 108(a). Plaintiff filed his voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on May 26, 2011.

Third, equitable tolling is unavailable. To begin with, Heartland cites no authority holding that the two-year extension in 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) is even subject to further tolling. E.g., In re Verilink Corp., 457 B.R. 832, 836 (N.D. Ala. 2011) (concluding that such “an extension of an extension . . . must be denied”).

However, 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) provides them with no such relief. The relevant language of 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) states: if applicable non-bankruptcy law, an order entered in a non-bankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor . . . may file any pleading, demand, notice, or proof of claim or loss, cure a default, or perform any other similar act, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee 2 Case 6:07-cv-01788-JA-GJK Document 144 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 2 of 4 may only file, cure, or perform, as the case may be, before the later of— (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or (2) 60 days after the order for relief. Notably, however, for Section 108 to apply, the time period for the pleading, notice, proof of claim or any other similar act must not have expired by the time the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Green v. Creditor Iustus Remedium, LLP, 2013 WL 6000967, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013). Plaintiff does not plead any facts setting forth: (i) how NetCredit caused Plaintiff’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously; (ii) when NetCredit caused Plaintiff’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously; (iii) how NetCredit’s alleged conduct unreasonably annoyed Plaintiff; (iv) how frequently NetCredit caused Plaintiff’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously or communicated by telephone or in person; (v) how NetCredit allegedly harassed Plaintiff; (vi) what specific statutory 3 Under 11 U.S.C. § 108, any statute of limitations tolled as of the Petition Date. Case 2:16-cv-07989-AB-AS Document 10 Filed 11/28/16 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 NETCREDIT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS CASE NO. 2:16-CV-7989-AB(ASX) AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR STRIKE regulations NetCredit violated; and/or (vii) how NetCredit alleged unspecified statutory regulations.

That filing had the effect of tolling the statute of limitations for two years. See 11 U.S.C. §108(a)(2). While Plaintiff largely complains about certain actions taken (or not taken) in the 2012– 13 and 2013–14 school years, Plaintiff also describes actions taken in the years before that.

The bankruptcy filing had the effect of tolling the statute of limitations for two years. See 11 U.S.C. §108(a)(2). 4

See LAC ¶¶ 223–27. The earliest that the statute of limitations could begin to run was thus in 2010 when defendants opaquely began to disclose their wrongdo- ing, and have been tolled since LightSquared filed for bankruptcy in 2012. See 11 U.S.C. § 108; see, e.g., Healy v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, 2011 WL 24261, at *12 (W.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2011) (holding fraudulent concealment would toll statute of limitations for breach of contract); Kiwanuka v. Bakilana, 844 F. Supp. 2d 107, 119 (D.D.C. 2012) (similar under D.C. law). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny defendants’ motion to dismiss. Case 1:13-cv-08157-RMB-JCF Document 55

When the state’s highest court has not spoken on an issue, a federal court must make the “best prediction, even in the absence of direct state precedent, of what the [state’s highest court] would do if confronted with [the] question.” Combs v. Int’l Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568, 577 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Welsh v. United States, 844 F.2d 1239, 1245 (6th Cir. 1983), overruled on other 68 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108(a), the Company’s bankruptcy filing automatically tolled the time to file this action. “If applicable nonbankruptcy law...fixes a period within which the debtor may commence an action, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee may commence such action only before the later of (1) the end of such period...or (2) two years after the order for relief.”

As set forth above, this cause of action was filed on October 6, 2011, which was less than two years from March 15, 2011, the date Pietro’s bankruptcy petition was filed. This filing was timely pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108(a)(2). These facts are undisputed.

(Emphasis added). The date Mr. Pietro filed bankruptcy is the date of the “order for relief” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §108(a)(2).2 IV. CONCLUSION As Mr. Pietro filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on March 15, 2011, the limitation period for the subject cause of action was extended from May 18, 2011 until March 15, 2013.