Opinion ID: 707858
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Claims

Text: 6 Litigation based on a violation of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j, must be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such violation. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 364, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 2782, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). A claim for a violation of California Corporations Code Sec. 25400 must be brought within one year of the discovery of the facts constituting the violation. Cal.Corp.Code Sec. 25506; Bowden v. Robinson, 67 Cal.App.3d 705, 714, 136 Cal.Rptr. 871, 878 (1977). 7 The district court took judicial notice of AIT's state action against Northern and the Brokers. State court dockets are sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of the state court action. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir.1995). 8 Northern knew or should have known of the false and misleading nature of the Brokers' letters when AIT filed its action in state court, if not before. See Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1417 (9th Cir.1987). Northern's claims of fraud based on the false and misleading information contained in those letters mirror AIT's complaint in the state court action filed November 14, 1991. Thus, Northern's securities fraud claims, filed more than a year later, are time-barred. See Lampf, 501 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 2782; Cal.Corp.Code Sec. 25506; Bowden, 67 Cal.App.3d at 714, 136 Cal.Rptr. at 871. We need not and do not decide whether a custodian like Northern could possibly be a purchaser. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 731, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1923, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975). Here too the district court could reasonably conclude that amendment would be futile.