
    In re AMERICAN FUNDS SECURITIES LITIGATION. Sabrina A. Chin, Plaintiff, Rolf Basler, Arden Geist, and Rolf Basler Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Capital Group Companies, Inc., Capital Research and Management Co., and American Funds Distributors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-56034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2009.
    Filed Sept. 17, 2010.
    Michael Reese, Reese Richman LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff/Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    James Nelson Benedict, Esquire, Christopher Neil Gray, Esquire, Sean Miles Murphy, Esquire, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, NY, Gareth T. Evans, Esquire, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior United States District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Sabrina A. Chin (“Chin”) brought an action against Capital Group Companies, Inc., Capital Research and Management Co., and American Funds Distributors, Inc. (collectively “American Funds”), alleging violations of §§ 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 111 (a)(2), 77o) and §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)). American Funds filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the bases that: (1) the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, i.e., 15 U.S.C. § 77m (one-year limitation on 1933 Securities Act claims) and 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1) (two-year limitation on 1934 Securities Exchange Act claims). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice more than two years before the action was filed. The district court did not address the alternate ground, failure to plead a cause of action.

The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2009).

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the written decision of the district court and are well known to the parties.

Subsequent to the decision in the district court and the completion of briefing in this court, the United States Supreme Court decided Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1784, 176 L.Ed.2d 582(2010). On remand, we applied Merck to a factually similar case in Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 610 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for further consideration in light of Merck.)

We requested and received further briefing from the parties. We agree with the decision in Betz that the best course is to remand to the district court for further proceedings. In Betz, the court outlined a number of reasons why this should be the preferred procedure. See Betz, 610 F.3d 1169.

We therefore vacate the district court’s prior judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Merck and Betz.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     