Clayton
Clayton v. Landsing Pacific Fund Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Margaret L. Clayton appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) her securities fraud action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim, Berry v. Valence Tech., Inc., 175 F.3d 699 , 706 (9th Cir.1999), as well as dismissals based on statutes of limitations, Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Clayton’s federal securities fraud claims as time-barred, because the second amended complaint did not allege fraud or deception in connection with the purchase or sale of any security within three years preceding the date Clayton filed this action. See 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5; Durning v. Citibank, Int’l, 990 F.2d 1133 , 1136 (9th Cir.1993) (finding claim time-barred under three-year statute of repose established in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 364 , 111 S.Ct. 2773 , 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991)).
Similarly, the district court properly dismissed Clayton’s state statutory securities fraud claims as time-barred because she failed to allege…