Diaz

Diaz v. Davis

Good Law
549 F.3d 1223·2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24967
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 200806-35838California7,367 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

George Diaz, sometime shareholder of Digimarc Corporation, filed this action derivatively on the corporation’s behalf. Diaz alleges that the individual defendants, who are current and former officers and directors of Digimarc, breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders by issuing misleading financial statements and misrepresenting the business and prospects of Digimarc in violation of California corporations law and section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7243 . The district court dismissed his Sarbanes-Oxley claim on the grounds that there is no private cause of action for a violation of section 304 and then realigned Digimarc as a plaintiff, thereby destroying diversity jurisdiction over Diaz’ state law claims. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the district court that there is no private right of action under section 304, and that the District of Oregon accordingly lacked federal question jurisdiction over the suit. We disagree, however, with the district court’s realignment of Digimarc as plaintiff for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction and therefore remand to that court for proceedings consistent with this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.