Michel X. Houglet v. Barra, Inc., a California Corporation Formerly Known as Barr Rosenberg Associates, Inc. Andrew Rudd and Ronald J. Lanstein

9 F.3d 1551 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Michel X. HOUGLET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARRA, INC., a California corporation formerly known as Barr Rosenberg Associates, Inc.; Andrew Rudd; and Ronald J. Lanstein, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15516. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 11, 1993. Decided Oct. 14, 1993. Before: SNEED, POOLE and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Michael X. Houglet appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of BARRA, Inc. in Houglet's lawsuit alleging federal and state securities fraud and related state law fraud and fiduciary duty claims. We now affirm. I. 3 Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir.1992). It is appropriate where there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and "the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Hanon, 976 F.2d at 500 . II. 4 Houglet raises two…