N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GLEN B AR

NES, Individua lly

and On B e h a lf of All Othe rs Sim ila rly Situa te d, Pla i ntiff, and IR ON W ORKER S LOC AL 580 JOINT FUNDS; IR

V ING LIC HTM AN, on be ha l f of the Irving Lic htm an R e voc a ble Living Trust, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts, v. EDISON INTER

N ATIONAL; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-55589 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-09690-C B M -FFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C onsue lo B . M arsha ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 8, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : IKUTA, LEE, a nd FOR REST, C irc uit Judge s . Irving Lic htm an a

nd Iron W orke rs Loc a l 580 Joint Funds (c olle c tive l y

“ Appe lla nts” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the ir c la im s a ga inst Appe lle e s Edison Inte rnationa l (Edison) under se c tion 10(b) of the Exc ha nge Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 78j(b); se e also R

ule 10b-5, 17 C .F.R . § 240.10b-5, a n d se c tion 11 of the Se c uritie s Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 77k(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing Appe lla nts’ c la im s unde r se c tion 10(b) of the Exc ha

nge Ac t be c a

use Appe lla

nts fa ile d to ple a d pa

rtic ula riz e d fa c ts showing fa lse o r m i sle a ding sta te m e n ts or om issions. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 78u–4(b); Fe d. R . C iv. P. 9(b). Thec ha l le nge d sta te m e nts re ga

rding Edison’ s sa fe ty

and re lia bility , we re not fa l se or m isle a ding be c a use the y we re not lite ra lly fa lse , se e Me t zle r Inv . GMBH v . C

orinthian C

olle ge s, Inc . , 540 F.3d 1049, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we re not c a

p a ble of obje c tive ve rific ation, se e K hoja v . Ore

x ige n The rape utic

s , Inc . , 899 F.3d 988, 1008 (9th C ir. 2018). R athe r, the y c onstitute d m e re c orporate puffe ry . Se e In reAlphabe t , Inc . Se c . Litig. , 1 F.4th 687, 708 (9th C ir. 2021). Nor we re the c ha l l e nge d sta te m e n ts m i sle a d ing by

om ission dueto Edison’ s fa ilure to disc lose public ly ava ila ble inform ation re ga

rding its sa fe ty pra c tic e s a

n d prior sa fe ty v i olations. There is no “rule of c om ple te ne s s for 2se c uritie s disc losure s” re quiring thedisc losure of a ll suc h public ly ava ila ble inform at ion, Polic e Re t. Sy s. of St. Louis v. Intuitiv e Surgic al, Inc . , 759 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th C ir. 2014), a

nd the c ha lle nge d om i ssions he re did not “ a ffirm ative ly c re ate an im

pre ssion of a

sta te of a ffa i rs tha

t diffe rs in a m ate ria l wa

y from the one that a c t ua lly e xists.” Id. (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). For the sa m e re a sons, Edison’ s sta

te m e nts re g arding the Long B e a c h fire , Edison’ s “ ‘ R isk’ Disc losure s,” Edison’ s inte ra c tions with the C a lifornia

Public Utilitie s C om

m ission (C PUC ), an d Edison’ s role in the Thom a s Fire , a re not a c t iona

ble . The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in dismissing Appe lla nts’ c l a im s unde r se c t ion 11 of theSe c uritie s Ac t. The fa c e of the c o m pla int e sta

b lishe s tha

t those c la im s a re ba rre d by the one -y e ar statute of lim i tations. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 77m . The c om pla i nt a lle ge d

tha t the purporte dly

c onc e a le d risks of Edison’ s sa fe ty pra c tic e s m ate ria l iz e d on De c e m

be r 5, 2017, whe n the m a rke t unde rstood tha

t Edison c a

use d the T hom a s Fire . A “ re a sona bly dilige nt” pla intiff c ould the re fore have disc ove re d the fa c ts c onstituting the a lle ge d Se c uritie s Ac t viola tion on De c e m

be r 5, 2017, se e Me rc k & C o., Inc . v . Re

y nolds , 559 U.S. 633, 653 (2010), a nd the sta tute of lim ita tions be ga

n to run on tha

t da te . B ut Pla intiffs did not file the ir Se c uritie s Ac t c la im s until April 29, 2019, well ove r one y e ar a fte r the sta tute of lim ita

t ions be ga

n to run. Ac c ordingly , Appe lla nts’ Se c uritie s Ac t c la im s a re tim e -barre d. Eve n if 3the s tat

ute of lim ita

t ions ha d n o t run, Appe lla nts’ Se c uritie s Ac t c la im

would fa il for the sa m e re a son the ir Exc ha

nge Ac t c l a im

fa ils, na m e ly , a fa ilure to ple a d pa rtic u la riz e d fa c ts showing false or m isle a ding sta te m e nts or omi ssions. Appe l la n ts’ argum e nt tha

t the ir Se c uritie s Ac t c la im is subje c t to le s s stringe nt ple a ding re quire m e nts tha n the i r Exc ha

nge Ac t c la im

fa ils be c a

use Se c uritie s Ac t c la im s a re ba s e d on the sa

m e purporte dly

fa l se or m i sle a d ing sta

te m e nts, in the sam e filings, a s the Exc ha n ge Ac t c la im . Appe lla

n ts’ Se c uritie s Ac t c la im the re fore “ sounds in fra

ud” and is subje c t to R

ule 9(b)’ s he ighte ne d ple a ding sta nda rd. Se e Rubk

e v . C apitol Banc orp Ltd, 551 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

4