David Bell v. Stuart James Company Inc. Harvey Nelson Joseph Tucillo

Good Law
996 F.2d 1223·1993 WL 206300·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 22598
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 14, 199391-56419California1,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

996 F.2d 1223 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STUART JAMES COMPANY INC.; Harvey Nelson; Joseph Tucillo, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-56419. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 8, 1993. * Decided June 14, 1993. Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Bell appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Bell's action alleging misrepresentations and omissions of material facts and manipulation of stock prices, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5. 1 We review de novo the district court's summary judgment. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1603 (1992). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Summary judgment is appropriate…

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.