46 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,143 times   104 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 3,552 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 4,902 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 2,910 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 1,321 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
  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,287 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 934 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

    416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 693 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 419 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the 'on track' and 'position us' portions of the [] statements, when read in context, cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the future projection of which they are a part"
  10. Ronconi v. Larkin

    253 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 517 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint did not sufficiently plead falsity where it alleged that defendant made false statements about earnings and sales expectations and that defendant stated that plan to cut jobs and costs was “on track,” but complaint did not allege facts showing that defendant knew at the time that the predictions were inaccurate
  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,633 times   194 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 7,552 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 7,474 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party