Case ID: f-appx_277/html/0751-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David H. VERDINER, an individual, for himself and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOTTRADE, INC., an entity of unknown origin, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-56655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2008.
    
    Filed May 12, 2008.
    Ryan D. Lapidus, Esq., Lapidus & Lapi-dus, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Andrew M. White, Esq., White O’Con-nor Curry, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas E. Douglass, Esq., Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. Saxton, 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. 
      
       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.