alleges that he “relied on the statements, his repositing of his faith and confidence in the relationship between [himself] and the Defendants to lull him into a false sense of security and misdirect him form [sic] the illegal acts of defendant as alleged herein,” he did not plead any specific conduct on the part of FFB that prevented him from discovering the alleged TILA violations and filing an action within the statute of limitations. Nor did plaintiff adequately explain why he did not become aware of “the violations of federal and state laws and the wrongdoing of Defendants” until the commencement of the foreclosure proceedings, or otherwise offer any persuasive argument demonstrating entitlement to equitable tolling. See Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 267-68 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because the allegations of the
holding that equitable tolling is applicable only in extreme cases noting that courts have been generally unforgiving when a late filing is due to the failure to exercise due diligence in preserving legal rights holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases holding that aliens failure to exercise due diligence in not inquiring into immigration status for eight years despite knowing that removal proceedings had commenced precluded equitable tolling of deadline for filing motion to reopen holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines