Case ID: f-appx_32/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David M. KUPFER, as co-trustee of the Kupfer Family Living Trust u/a dtd 5/6/93, et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Wendy Feldman PURNER, aka Wendy Purner Feldman, aka Wendy Feldman, aka Wendy Purner, aka Wendy F. Purner, et al., Defendants—Appellants, and Sutro and Co., Inc., a Nevada corporation, et al., Defendants.
    No. 01-57143.
    D.C. No. CV-01-01769-NAJ(RBB).
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 8, 2002.
    
    Decided April 11, 2002.
    Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Appellees’ non-frivolous assertion of a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). Subject matter jurisdiction being appellants’ only objection to the preliminary injunction order, we express no opinion regarding the merits of the complaint and affirm the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.