and quotation marks omitted)); Chris Albritton Constr. Co. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 304 F.3d 527, 532 (5th Cir.2002) (“Regarding excusable ignorance, the voluntary payment doctrine precludes courts from extending relief to those who have neglected to take care of their interests and are in predicaments which ordinary care would have avoided.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, in some situations, courts have found it proper to dispose of this issue at the summary judgment stage. See Spivey, 622 F.3d at 824; Chris Albritton, 304 F.3d at 532. Other federal courts, however, have held that the applicability of the mistake of fact exception is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. See Rickenbach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 635 F.Supp.2d 389, 395 (D.N.J.2009) (<HOLDING>); Dynatec Drilling, Inc. v. Duncan Park
recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact holding that disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in state law must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party recognizing that a mistake of fact may constitute a valid defense holding that applicability of the voluntary payment doctrine and the mistake of fact exception raises questions of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss