NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT LATHAM; VIRGINIA DEUTSCH,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. NVEST SV, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16164
D.C. No. 4:19

- cv - 02517

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2021 * * San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Scott Latham and Virginia Deutsch appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their first amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction . We
affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 3

1. The district court correctly determined th at plaintiffs lack statutory standing to sue on their claims under federal law. Plaintiffs do not dispute that standing to sue for trademark infringement or trade secret theft is reserved for owners of the relevant intellectual property , and that NVest ow ned the trademarks
and trade secrets in question. They instead argue that their status as shareholders made them joint owners of NVest’s intellectual property

. However, it is “ [ a ] basic

ten e t of American corporate law” that individual shareholders do not own or have legal title to the corporation ’ s assets. Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson , 538 U.S. 468,
47 4

– 7 5 (2003) . Plaintiffs ’ shareholder status does not confer the ownership
interest they assert , and they therefore lack standing to asse rt their trademark and
trade secret claims

. Because plaintiffs do not have statutory standing to assert their
federal claim s , dismissal of those claims was proper under Fed eral R ule of Civ il

P rocedure 12(b)(6)

. The district court also did not abuse its d iscretion in
dismiss ing without prejudice plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, as plaintiffs failed to establish diversity jurisdiction as to those claims.
2. Plaintif

fs also argue that the district court abused its discretion by not

gra n ting them leave to amend their complaint so that they could add derivative trademark infringement and trade secret claim s on behalf of NVest . As non attorney pro se plaintiffs, however, they are unable to pursue a representative claim on behalf of a corporatio n. See In re Am

. W

. Airlines , 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.Page 3 of 3

1994)

. Any such amendment would therefore have be en futile , and the district

court properly denied leave to amend

. See Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of

L .A. , 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014)

. To the extent plaintiffs request
additional relief

, those arguments either were not raised in the district court or were not distinctly argued in the opening brief, and they are therefore not properly
before us. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 98 5 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also United States v. Graf

, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010) ( unsupported arguments made in passing are generally deemed waived)

. AFFIRMED
.