Sabrina Chin, et al v. Capital Group Companies, Inc, et al, No. 08-56034 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 17 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In Re: AMERICAN FUNDS SECURITIES LITIGATION ________________________________ No. 08-56034 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-07815-GAF-RNB SABRINA A. CHIN, MEMORANDUM * Plaintiff, ROLF BASLER, ARDEN GEIST, and ROLF BASLER REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC., CAPITAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT CO., and AMERICAN FUNDS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2009 Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior United States District Judge.** Plaintiff Sabrina A. Chin ( Chin ) brought an action against Capital Group Companies, Inc., Capital Research and Management Co., and American Funds Distributors, Inc. (collectively American Funds ), alleging violations of §§ 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 77l(a)(2), 77o) and §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)). American Funds filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the bases that: (1) the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (2) Plaintiffs claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, i.e., 15 U.S.C. § 77m (one-year limitation on 1933 Securities Act claims) and 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1) (two-year limitation on 1934 Securities Exchange Act claims). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice more than two ** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 2 years before the action was filed. The district court did not address the alternate ground, failure to plead a cause of action. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the written decision of the district court and are well known to the parties. Subsequent to the decision in the district court and the completion of briefing in this court, the United States Supreme Court decided Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010). On remand, we applied Merck to a factually similar case in Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 610 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding for further consideration in light of Merck.) We requested and received further briefing from the parties. We agree with the decision in Betz that the best course is to remand to the district court for further proceedings. In Betz, the court outlined a number of reasons why this should be the preferred procedure. See Betz, 610 F.3d 1169. We therefore vacate the district court s prior judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Merck and Betz. 3 VACATED AND REMANDED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
