Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jim Cody WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOUCHTUNES MUSIC CORPORATION, a New York corporation; Tony Mastronardi, an individual; Guy Nathan, an individual; John Perrachon, an individual; Matthew Carson, an individual; Chris Marcolefas, an individual; Dan McAllister, an individual; Dominque Dion, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 14-56055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 3, 2016.
    
    Filed May 6, 2016.
    George L. Steele, Esquire, Law Offices of George L. Steele, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James N. Kramer, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Michael Askew, Judy Kwan, Michael Carl Tu, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Jim Cody Williams’s Fourth Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct and is therefore subject to the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b). Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd., 551 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.2009). The operative complaint does not meet that standard because it does not “state with particularity the circumstances constituting [the alleged] fraud.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice because Williams failed to cure this pleading defect after the court gave Williams an opportunity to do so.

Defendant-Appellee’s Motion To Dismiss Notice Of Appeal and Motion For Judicial Notice are denied as moot.

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