commences to run [fn. omitted]. By its plain language, the statute requires actual knowledge, not just ‘inquiry notice.’ This conclusion is buttressed by a comparison of the language of section 25506.1 which establishes a statute of limitations for fraud liability imposed upon certain persons who ‘expertise’ a prospectus. This latter section expressly mandates a one-year limitation ‘after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.’ (§ 25506.1, italics added.) Here the statute of limitations requires the party wronged to have actual notice of the illegality before the one year begins to run. ...” (Eisenbaum, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 325-326.) As the court recognized in Grace Bros., Ltd. v. DNA Plant Technology Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 662 (<HOLDING>), the Eisenbaum court’s discussion of inquiry
holding that the period of limitations starts to run anew on the date the notice of dismissal is filed in the court holding that failure to post the required notice will toll the running of the 180day statute of limitations   holding that under section 25506 the clock starts running on the statute of limitations when the plaintiff has inquiry notice of the alleged misconduct holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense