J. D. Jordan v. JAY C. HOAG, Founding General Partner, Technology Crossover Ventures;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
J. D. JORDAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAY C. HOAG, Founding General Partner,
Technology Crossover Ventures; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15451
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01819-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
J.D. Jordan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging a claim under § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15451
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jordan’s action because Jordan failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.16b–6(a)
(“The establishment of . . . a call equivalent position . . . shall be deemed a
purchase of the underlying security for purposes of section 16(b) of the Act . . . .”),
§ 240.16b–6(b) (disposition of underlying securities due to the exercise of a put
equivalent position shall be exempt from the operation of § 16(b)); Strom v. United
States, 641 F.3d 1051, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth elements of a § 16(b)
claim; concluding that “unvested securities are acquired, and thus ‘purchased’
under § 16(b), when granted”); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se
pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance and sanctions (Docket Entry No.
10) is denied.
Appellant’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --