Opinion
No. 18-15451
03-19-2019
J. D. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAY C. HOAG, Founding General Partner, Technology Crossover Ventures; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01819-EJD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
J.D. Jordan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging a claim under § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jordan's action because Jordan failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.16b-6(a) ("The establishment of . . . a call equivalent position . . . shall be deemed a purchase of the underlying security for purposes of section 16(b) of the Act . . . ."), § 240.16b-6(b) (disposition of underlying securities due to the exercise of a put equivalent position shall be exempt from the operation of § 16(b)); Strom v. United States, 641 F.3d 1051, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth elements of a § 16(b) claim; concluding that "unvested securities are acquired, and thus 'purchased' under § 16(b), when granted"); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
Appellees' motion for summary affirmance and sanctions (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.
Appellant's motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.