Opinion ID: 4414424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Banks’ elder abuse claims and claims against NT

Text: Corp. Finally, Northern argues that Banks’ opening brief did not address the district court’s dismissal of the elder abuse 20 BANKS V. NORTHERN TRUST claims and the claims against NT Corp., Northern’s corporate parent. Banks responds that the district court dismissed all those claims based solely on SLUSA preclusion, which is why its opening brief focused on the inapplicability of SLUSA preclusion. Further, Banks’ opening brief argued the district court erred by summarily dismissing the complaint because it should have considered the FAC on a claim-by-claim basis. See Proctor v. Vishay Intertech., Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that “SLUSA does not require the dismissal of all nonprecluded claims appearing in the same complaint as a precluded claim”). As SLUSA does not preclude the elder abuse claims or the claims against NT Corp., and because the briefing provides no other basis for dismissal, we also reverse the dismissal of those claims. 7 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 8 7 We decline to reach whether the district court erred by dismissing the claims without leave to amend, as our analysis renders that issue moot. 8 We decline to reassign this case to a different district court judge. See United States v. Paul, 561 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (noting the three-factor test for reassignment).