this action in federal court. Johnson contends that his timely state court filing satisfies the statute of limitations under theories of equitable estoppel and equitable tolling. We disagree. Under California law, equitable tolling will be warranted where the defendants have induced the plaintiff to delay filing until after the statute of limitations has run. See Mills v. Forestex Co., 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 652, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 273 (2003) (citation omitted). We discern nothing in the record to suggest that the defendants’ conduct caused Johnson to voluntarily dismiss his state court action or wait an additional 47 days before filing this action in federal court. In addition, California courts have concluded that absent express statutory language, a pla 941, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Rotary Club of Duarte v. Bd. of Dirs., 178
holding the defendant properly convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery against bank employees even though the defendant robbed only the bank holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank recognizing claim against bank receiver