Opinion ID: 3053923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and we can affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 403 F.3d 1050, 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005). We take all well pleaded allegations of material fact as true and construed in Thompson’s favor. Maduka v. Sunrise Hosp., 375 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct. 2499, 2508 (2007) (describing the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s (“PSLRA”) heightened THOMPSON v. PAUL 14963 pleading requirements for Section 10(b) misrepresentation claims, citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1), (2)). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a request to certify a question to a state supreme court. Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Riley, 338 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2003).