The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommended disposition and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff had brought claims against the defendants for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated Section 206 of the IAA, which makes it unlawful for any investment adviser “to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client.” The court first noted the limited private remedies available under the Act. It then sought to determine the applicable limitations period for claims under the IAA by examining a decision by the Second Circuit finding that the limitations period provided for by the Securities Acts is the most appropriate limitations period for a claim under the IAA. The Second Circuit had determined that the proper limitations period should be one year from the wrong or the discovery of the wrong but not more than three years from the wrong. The court in the case at hand found that the plaintiff’s claim was filed more than six years after the wrongs had occurred and, as a result, was time-barred. The plaintiff argued that her claim was an equitable claim because she sought disgorgement of profits and therefore it should not be subject to a statute of limitations. The court found that the cases the plaintiff cited for this proposition were clearly distinguishable to the case at bar, and noted that other district courts had followed the limitations period determined by the Second Circuit for claims brought under the IAA. Therefore, because the plaintiff’s claims were not filed within three years of the date of the wrong, regardless of when discovered, they were time-barred. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants. (Dommert v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 2009 WL 275440 (E.D. Tex. February 3, 2009))