Does the inquiry notice doctrine allow a court to start the RICO limitations period before discovery of any actual injury?

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that the RICO limitations period began to run when Petitioner first discovered that his father, aunt, and uncle, had conspired to strip real assets from his grandmother’s trust shortly before her death. The conspiracy was unsuccessful at the time and no actual injury occurred until the following year. The Panel paid lip-service to this Court’s decision in Rotella v. Wood , 528 U.S. 549, 555 (2000) that only the discovery of injury starts the RICO clock. It ignored Petitioner’s prompt inquiry when he first learned of the conspiracy, and his retention of counsel, imputing knowledge of the later injury to him notwithstanding his inquiry. The timeliness and reasonableness of his inquiry were not addressed by the District Court or the Panel. It then found that his allegations of fraudulent concealment were insufficient, and that post-mortem looting of the personal assets of the trust did not give rise to “new and independent” claims entitled to separate accrual of the limitations period, even though neither issue had been addressed below. The questions presented are: 1. Does the inquiry notice doctrine allow a court to start the RICO limitations period before discovery of any actual injury? 2. Did Singleton v. Wulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) require the Panel to remand the case to the District Court to consider the issues it had not previously addressed?