§Why CasetextPricing

Lifschitz v. Nextwave Wireless

RESPONSE in Opposition to 58 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Complaint

46 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,259 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,578 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

  3. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.

    316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,968 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

  4. In re Gilead Sciences

    536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 2,947 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory"

  5. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,347 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "for individual defendants' stock sales to raise an inference of scienter, plaintiffs must provide a 'meaningful trading history' for purposes of comparison to the stock sales within the class period," and that "[e]ven if the defendant's trading history is simply not available, for reasons beyond a plaintiff's control, the plaintiff is not excused from pleading the relevant history"

  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,298 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  7. Metzler v. Corinthian

    540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 940 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"

  8. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney

    403 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 697 times
    Finding that learning a company had substantially less cash than it had been led to believe material

  9. Instit. Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc.

    564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 425 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that confidential witness allegations were detailed enough when: they reflect information about the relevant company's inability to compete with specific competitors, specific price reductions the company was forced to accept, and the specific clients who received discounts

  10. No. 84 Employer-Teamster v. America W. Holding

    320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 491 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations must be considered in their totality in determining whether plaintiffs have met the PSLRA standard

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 158,801 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,674 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,538 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party