Colin

Colin v. Onyx Acceptance Corp.

Good Law
31 F. App'x 359
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 14, 2002No. 01-55499; D.C. No. CV-00-00087-GLTCalifornia736 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Colin appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his securities class action suit. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court did not err in dismissing Colin’s claim of securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). A prima facie claim of securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act requires: (1) a false statement or omission of a material fact, (2) reliance, (3) scienter, and (4) damages, meaning that the misstatement or omission has proximately caused the plaintiffs investment loss. Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 82 F.3d 877, 884 (9th Cir.1996). To establish the requisite scienter under § 10(b), a plaintiff must show that the defendant possessed “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 , 193 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 1375 , 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976).

A complaint alleging fraud must meet the heightened pleading standards of Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b), which requires that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances…

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.