Opinion
No. 06-15116.
Argued and Submitted April 17, 2008.
Filed April 29, 2008.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Avi N. Wagner, Clancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer L. Keeney, Christopher L. Nelson, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz Kessler, LLP, Radnor, PA, Frank R. Mead, Tiffany Bosco, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
David Hennes, Shahzeb Lari, William McGuinness, Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobson, New York, NY, Doug C. Northup, Fennemore Craig, PC, David B. Rosenbaum, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-04-01640-PHX-MHM, CV-04-01805-PHX-MHM, CV-04-02058-PHXMHM.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WALLACE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
For the reasons given by the district court, appellants have failed to "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Appellees] acted with" "actual knowledge" that their forward-looking statements were false, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u- 4(b)(2), 78u-5(c)(1)(B).
Because the district court correctly dismissed Appellants' § 10(b) claims, it did not err in also dismissing Appellants' § 20(a) claims. See Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). Any amendment would be futile. See In re Vantive Corp. Sec. Litig., 283 F.3d 1079, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002).