Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8669910
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Zack v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc.
No. 8669910 · Decided April 29, 2008
No. 8669910·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 29, 2008
Citation
No. 8669910
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * For the reasons given by the district court, appellants have failed to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Appellees] acted with” “actual knowledge” that them forward-looking statements were false, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(b)(2), 78u-5(c)(1)(B). Because the district court correctly dismissed Appellants’ § 10(b) claims, it did not err in also dismissing Appellants’ § 20(a) claims. See Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir.1990). Any amendment would be futile. See In re Vantive Corp. Sec. Litig., 283 F.3d 1079, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM * For the reasons given by the district court, appellants have failed to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Appellees] acted with” “actual knowledge” that them forward-looking statements were
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM * For the reasons given by the district court, appellants have failed to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Appellees] acted with” “actual knowledge” that them forward-looking statements were
02Because the district court correctly dismissed Appellants’ § 10(b) claims, it did not err in also dismissing Appellants’ § 20(a) claims.
03The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM * For the reasons given by the district court, appellants have failed to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Appellees] acted with” “actual knowledge” that them forward-looking statements were
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Zack v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 29, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8669910 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.