Dimitriy Karpov v. Insight Enterprises, Inc. , 471 F. App'x 607 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIMITRIY KARPOV, individually and on No. 10-17841
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, et al., D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00856-SRB
Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM *
and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 825
PENSION FUND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants - Appellees
and
KPMG LLP,
Defendant.
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 District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District
Judge.**
Plaintiff-appellant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825
Pension Fund (“Appellant” or “Local 825 Fund”) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of its securities fraud class action complaint with prejudice, for failing to
adequately plead scienter. In particular, the district court found that none of the
allegations from confidential witnesses could support an inference of scienter
because the reliability and personal knowledge of the witnesses themselves were
not properly pleaded. Further, the district court concluded that the other
allegations could not, standing alone or taken together, satisfy the more stringent
pleading requirements for scienter contained in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552
F.3d 981, 1000 (9th Cir. 2009).
We review de novo challenges to a dismissal for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6). Livid Holdings Ltd. v.
**
The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
2
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm the
district court for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned order dated November 16,
2010.
AFFIRMED.
3