Michael Kronk v. Landwin Group, Llc ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                MAY 08 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL KRONK, on behalf of himself              No. 11-56191
    and all others similarly situated,
    D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00242-CJC-
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             MLG
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LANDWIN GROUP, LLC; SYLVIA,
    INC.; SMITHDENNISON CAPITAL,
    LLC; CPP PROPERTIES, LLC; MUIR,
    LLC; MARSHALL REDDICK
    COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
    NETWORKS, INC.; SEAN DENNISON;
    MARTIN LANDIS; TOM CASAULT;
    CHRIS PARNASS; MARSHALL
    REDDICK; JACK R. ANDREWS AND
    ASSOCIATES, LLC; NHB FAMILY
    PARTNERS, LLC; MARSHALL
    REDDICK REALTY, INC.; MARSHALL
    REDDICK SEMINARS, INC.;
    COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
    PROPERTIES, LLC; JACK ANDREWS;
    NORMAN BANGERTER,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    for the Central District of California
    Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 12, 2013
    Pasadena, California
    Before: BERZON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District
    Judge.**
    Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Kronk appeals from the district court’s dismissal
    of several causes of action in a putative class action. We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we review de novo. See Knievel v. ESPN, 
    393 F.3d 1068
    ,
    1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see
    Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 
    534 F.3d 1116
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2008),
    and we affirm.
    Kronk has failed to plead sufficient facts to create a strong inference that the
    defendants acted with the requisite scienter for a Section 10(b) violation. Zucco
    Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 
    552 F.3d 981
    , 998 (9th Cir. 2009). He has also
    failed to plead facts that demonstrate the defendants made forward-looking
    statements with actual knowledge that the statements were false or misleading. In
    re Daou Sys., Inc., 
    411 F.3d 1006
    , 1021–22 (9th Cir. 2005). Because he has not
    sufficiently alleged a Section 10(b) violation, there is no primary violation to
    **
    The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    2
    support Section 20(a) liability for any defendant. See In re Oracle Corp. Sec.
    Litig., 
    627 F.3d 376
    , 394 (9th Cir. 2010).
    The district court properly dismissed Kronk’s claim under Section 25501 of
    the California Corporations Code because Kronk failed to assert the claim against
    the “literal seller” of the security—Landwin Management, LLC. See SEC v.
    Seaboard Corp., 
    677 F.2d 1289
    , 1296 (9th Cir. 1982). Without a primary Section
    25501 violation, there can be no liability for any defendant under Section 25504.
    Kronk’s claims for federal RICO violations, breach of fiduciary duty,
    negligent interference with a prospective economic advantage, and intentional
    interference with a prospective economic advantage rely on harm done to Landwin
    Management, not to Kronk individually. Kronk has failed to prove that any
    defendant owed a special duty to him distinct from other shareholders or that
    Kronk suffered a unique injury, and the district court properly dismissed these
    claims because they were not brought as derivative actions. See, e.g., Sparling v.
    Hoffman Constr. Co., 
    864 F.2d 635
    , 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
    Kronk does not have standing to assert his false advertising and unfair
    business practices violations because he has failed to allege any injury unrelated to
    the sale or purchase of a security. See Bowen v. Ziasun Techs., Inc., 
    116 Cal. App. 4th 777
    , 790 (2004).
    3
    Kronk failed to adequately plead his state law fraud claims because his
    allegations involve too many layers of willful ignorance to permit any factfinder to
    determine that his reliance on only the defendants’ alleged statements—in light of
    the repeated instructions to obtain and read the Private Placement Memorandum
    and his own contractual representation that he did read it—was reasonable. See
    Seeger v. Odell, 
    18 Cal. 2d 409
    , 414–15 (1941).
    The judgment is AFFIRMED.
    4