
    In re: DIAMOND FOODS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Dave Lucia, derivatively on behalf of Diamond Foods, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. Mendes; Steven M. Neil; Laurence M. Baer; Edward A. Blechschmidt; John J. Gilbert; Robert M. Lea; Glen C. Warren, Jr.; Richard G. Wolford; Robert J. Zol-lars; Estate of Joseph P. Silveira; Dennis Mussell; Deloitte & Touche LLP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16299.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2014.
    Filed May 19, 2014.
    Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esquire, Albert Y. Chang, Esquire, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA, Keith Michael Cochran, Cha-pin Fitzgerald LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sara Beth Brody, Naomi A. Igra, Esquire, Robert B. Martin, III, Sidley Austin, LLP, Michael J. Shepard, Hogan Lo-vells U.S. LLP, Ethan Douglas Dettmer, Esquire, Joseph Craig Hansen, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Steven Andrew Hong, James N. Kramer, Senior Litigation, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Jonathan Gaskin, Esquire, Kaufhold Gas-kin LLP, Steven Kaufhold, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dale Eugene Barnes, Jr., Esquire, Elisa M. Cervantes, Anne Kaldor Sauro, Bingham Mccutchen LLP, Dean S. Kristy, Esquire, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West Lip, San Francisco, CA, Norman Jeffrey Blears, Esquire, Sidley Austin LLP, Maren Jessica Clouse, Esquire, Michael J. Shepard, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Paul Jeffrey Collins, Esquire, Steven J. Johnson, Esquire, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Jonathan C. Dickey, Esquire, George A. Schieren, Esquire, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Sean M. Gaffney, Esquire, S. Todd Neal, Sean Michael Sullivan, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Dave Lucia appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing this- shareholder derivative suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and adopt the well-reasoned decision of the district court.

The parties’ requests for judicial notice are granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     