From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Falkowski v. Imation Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2002
320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2002)

Summary

holding where issue of whether defendant has contractual duty cannot be resolved from face of contract because of ambiguities therein, contract claims not subject to dismissal

Summary of this case from Turtle v. Sanctuary Records Group, Inc.

Opinion

No. 01-16113.

Argued and Submitted August 14, 2002.

Filed October 29, 2002. Amended February 18, 2003.

Neal A. Dublinsky, Lionel Z. Glancy, Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellants.

James K. Langdon II, Andrew Holly, Dorsey Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for the appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Jeremy Fogel, J., Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-21072-JF.

Before HALL, KOZINSKI, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The panel recalls the mandate that issued on November 20, 2002 for the limited purpose of amending the opinion filed October 29, 2002, 309 F.3d 1123 as follows:

1) In the second sentence of part IVB, insert "to the extent the claims are grounded in fraud," after ("under this chapter") and before "they are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)".

In accordance with this Court's General Orders, no further petitions for rehearing may be filed.


Summaries of

Falkowski v. Imation Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 29, 2002
320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2002)

holding where issue of whether defendant has contractual duty cannot be resolved from face of contract because of ambiguities therein, contract claims not subject to dismissal

Summary of this case from Turtle v. Sanctuary Records Group, Inc.

addressing the "in connection with" element of preemption under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA") and holding that because the 1933 and 1934 Acts define the purchase or sale of a security to include any contract to buy or sell a security, and because it follows from Congress' definition that if a person contracts to sell a security, that contract is a "sale" even if the sale is never consummated, the grant of an employee stock option on a covered security is a sale of that covered security [known as the "aborted purchaser-seller doctrine]"

Summary of this case from Lampkin v. UBS Painewebber, Inc. (In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig.)
Case details for

Falkowski v. Imation Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Mark W. FALKOWSKI; Michael Benz; Jean-Luc Chatelain; Phillippe C…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2002

Citations

320 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2002)

Citing Cases

In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative "ERISA"

15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(1)(A), (B) (2). See, e.g., Dudek v. Prudential Securities Inc., 295 F.3d 875, 877 (8th…

Lampkin v. UBS Painewebber, Inc. (In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig.)

These courts and the SEC Release grew out of Daniel 's finding that these stock option employees that did not…