In City of Vista v. Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 882, the Court addressed the accrual of applicable limitations periods in a misrepresentation action against Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (Robert Thomas), a securities dealer. In 1990 the City of Vista (Vista) purchased securities called interest-only strips. By September 1990 Vista decided the investments were not proper for a municipality and demanded that Robert Thomas return its money. In October 1991 Vista wrote a letter to another dealer demanding restitution and accusing the dealers involved in the transactions of price collusion. in November 1995 Vista sued Robert Thomas and other dealers for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and related counts. The court granted Robert Thomas' motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, finding Vista discovered the investments were improper by September 1990 and knew it suffered pecuniary harm by October 1991. The Court reversed the judgment because there was a triable issue of fact as to when Vista suffered actual damage. A registered investment advisor submitted a declaration that stated it was generally impossible to determine the outcome of Vista's investment " 'until near the last interest payment received,' " and based on his review of interest payments, Vista "had not suffered any damage on one of the . . . investments until 1994." ( Robert Thomas Securities, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 887.) The Court explained that even if Vista knew in October 1991 that it paid an excessive markup on the securities, it "would not have suffered damage had it received interest payments sufficient to cover its initial payment and provide a reasonable return." (Ibid.)