at issue such that he was under an affirmative obligation to disclose, thereby excusing Lewis’ own due diligence in discovering Hermann's alleged fraud with respect to the sale of the La Villita and Metro Partners investments. Accepting the fact that Hermann was a fiduciary, and even assuming Richards was also a fiduciary, Lewis nevertheless has failed to additionally allege a basis from which we might infer that, having purportedly committed fraud in the sale of both investments, Richards and Hermann took measures to actively conceal the fraud from Lewis. The allegations in the complaint do not refer even inferentially to any post-transaction conduct of Richards or Hermann, let alone conduct that would indicate active concealment of the fraud. See, Davenport, 903 F.2d at 1142 (<HOLDING>). In fact, Lewis does not rely on the
holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding that the silence of a fiduciary does not constitute concealment and that a plaintiff must show that the defendants took additional affirmative steps after committing the fraud to keep it concealed holding that the statute of limitations did not commence  despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician  until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud holding that mere silence without a duty to speak will not constitute fraud