Verdiner v. Scottrade

Full title: David H. VERDINER, an individual, for himself and on behalf of the general…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 12, 2008

277 F. App'x 751 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-56655.

Submitted May 8, 2008.^_

_ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 12, 2008.

Ryan D. Lapidus, Esq., Lapidus Lapidus, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew M. White, Esq., White O'Connor Curry, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas E. Douglass, Esq., Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary A. Fees, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-04620-GAF.

Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE,^__ District Judge.

__ The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM^___

___ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The facts of this case are known to the parties.

In accordance with SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006), as well as this Court's recent ruling in U.S. Mortgage, Inc. v. Saxtan, 494 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2007), we conclude the commissions charged by Scottrade, which necessarily "coincided" with the purchase and sale of securities, fall squarely within the range that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was intended to cover.

AFFIRMED.