Whether the lower courts erred in failing to apply American Pipe tolling to petitioner's opt-out case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The issues-presented are important because they concern individual rights, a principal that our founders used to establish our Democracy that allowed a person to protect her own interests, free from the shackles of group think. The time has come to address investor rights in a meaningful way. Many investors have suffered in silence by experiencing monetary losses without even understanding how. Class actions are one avenue of recovery, but in some cases, an investor’s chances of a full recovery as a class member may be described as riding on a wing and a prayer. Whether through pension funds or as in petitioner’s own case by attempting to invest on her own; investors would now like to realize their right to proceed in court when necessary and individually. Therefore, petitioner seeks resolution of the following questions: 1. Whether the lower courts erred in failing to apply American Pipe tolling to petitioner’s opt-out case? 2. Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to apply the Discovery Accrual Rule to petitioner’s Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) claims? A. Whether petitioner’s monetary losses in her customer account constituted Actual Notice of her federal claims? B. Whether petitioner’s monetary losses in her customer account standing alone constituted Inquiry Notice or “Storm Warnings” of her federal claims? u 3. Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to apply the Discovery Accrual Rule to petitioner’s RICO case? 4. Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to apply the doctrine of Equitable Tolling based on Fraudulent Concealment to all federal claims? 5. Whether the lower courts erred in failing to consider petitioner’s due process rights as an opt-out from a companion class action Jn re Platinum & Palladium Antitrust Litigation, 1:14-ev-09391, 2017 WL 116962 (S.D.N-Y. 2017) when dismissing her case as untimely. 6. Whether petitioner is still a bona fide member of the Class Action in In re Platinum & Palladium II, even though her individual case has been dismissed?