§Why CasetextPricing

Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated et al

MOTION to Dismiss Case and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

23 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,087 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,049 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  3. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,313 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter

  4. Metzler v. Corinthian

    540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 930 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where plaintiffs' theory was that "Corinthian's fraud was revealed to the market, causing Metzler's losses" but "[t]he TAC does not allege that the June 24 and August 2 announcements disclosed—or even suggested—[the fraudulent activities] to the market"

  5. Cutera Securities Litigation v. Conners

    610 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 474 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "statements fall outside the safe harbor if the plaintiff can allege facts that would create a strong inference that the defendants made the [statements] at issue with ‘actual knowledge ... that the statement was false or misleading’ "

  6. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp.

    284 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud by relying on a company's internal reporting must do more than identify certain "negative" reports

  7. South Ferry v. Killinger

    542 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 373 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “detailed and specific allegations about management's exposure to factual information within the company” support an inference of scienter

  8. Rigel Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig. v. Deleage

    697 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 288 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for statements to be actionable under the PSLRA, they must have been "false or misleading at the time they were made"

  9. Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc.

    774 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 250 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement

  10. Cohen v. Nvidia Corp.

    768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 244 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although company began investigation regarding problems with computer chip at the time statements at issue were made, the court could not infer scienter in absence of allegations showing that the company's management had knowledge of the extent of the problems at that time

  11. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,446 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  12. Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,257 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under the statutory safe harbor, a defendant may avoid liability for any forward-looking statement that is false or misleading if the statement is "identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement"