Nehus v. Painewebber Inc.

91 F.3d 153 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gary NEHUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAINEWEBBER INC., Defendant, Rally's Hamburgers, Inc., current & former officers & directors Burt Sugarman, Wayne Albritton, Donald Moore, Charles Klausman, D. Randy Laney; Giant Group, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-56663. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 9, 1996. * Decided July 15, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 In this appeal, Gary Nehus contends that the district court erred by dismissing with prejudice his third-amended securities fraud complaint for failing to plead fraud with particularity, and alternatively, for failing to state a claim. We agree with the district court that Nehus failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity and therefore affirm. 3 Securities fraud actions brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), are…