Filed October 27, 2005
That does not suffice. Sagent, 278 F. Supp. 2d at 1096 (complaint “must indicate when [the plaintiff] bought stock . . . and must state that they have owned stock continuously” in order to satisfy Rule 23.1); see also Abramson v. Pennwood Inv.
Filed May 18, 2009
This wholesale failure runs directly afoul of Plaintiffs’ obligation to provide each and every defendant with sufficient, factual notice of the claims against them. See In re Sagent Tech., 278 F.Supp.2d at 1094; see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007); Dell, Inc. v. This Old Store, Inc., No.
Filed June 19, 2017
ing, “Because [the individual defendants] are mentioned only once in Case 3:17-cv-00001-LAB-MDD Document 13-1 Filed 06/19/17 PageID.1262 Page 21 of 32 - 15 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY SME DEFENDANTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AT KI NS ON , A ND EL SO N, L OY A, R UU D & RO M O A PR OF ES SI ON AL C OR PO RA TI ON AT TO RN EY S AT L AW 12 80 0 CE NT ER C OU RT D RI VE S OU TH , S UI TE 3 00 CE RR IT O S, C AL IF O RN IA 9 07 03 -9 36 4 TE LE PH ON E: (5 62 ) 65 3- 32 00 FA X: (5 62 ) 65 3- 33 33 the substantive allegations, and even in that mention only as members of a larger collective group of individuals, the amended complaint does not give [the individual defendants] the opportunity to effectively defend themselves and unfairly subjects these particular Defendants to the expense of litigation.”); In re Sagent Tech., 278 F. Supp. 2d at 1094-95 (granting motion to dismiss, and ruling “[a] complaint that lumps together [multiple] ‘individual defendants’ . . . fails to give ‘fair notice’ of the claim to those defendants.”); Aaron v. Aguirre, 2007 WL 959083, at *16 n.6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2007) (“[U]ndifferentiated pleading against multiple defendants is improper.”);
Filed June 9, 2014
C. The Plaintiffs’ Allegations As To Each Defendant Regarding A U.S. Conspiracy Further Highlight The Inadequacies Of The Complaints As demonstrated above, the Complaints must satisfy Rule 8’s pleading requirements with respect to each and every named defendant. See Brennan 369 F. Supp. 2d at 1136-37; In re Sagent Tech. 278 F. Supp. 2d at 1094-95. The Complaints must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether they appropriately allege the facts necessary to show each defendant’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Filed August 15, 2011
Rales, 634 A.2d at 936. A director is “independent” if he or she can base a decision “on the corporate 5 Sagent Tech., 278 F. Supp. 2d at 1087 (explaining that demand futility looks to board members in place at time complaint was filed; citing Rales, 634 A.2d at 934). Case5:10-cv-04720-EJD Document68 Filed08/15/11 Page17 of 31 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FR AN C I SC O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HP’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 11 (5:10-CV-04720-EJD) merits of the subject before the board rather than extraneous considerations or influences.”
Filed April 23, 2010
However, Sagent was a derivative action, alleging demand futility, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste. 278 F. Supp. 2d at 1085. Because the Sagent plaintiffs lumped together 13 defendants when only three were present for the entire period of the events alleged, the Court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims for failure to give fair notice of the claim to all defendants.
Filed May 1, 2017
Because Plaintiff has pled no facts connecting Defendants with varying Board tenures to the alleged Case 1:16-cv-04132-SCJ Document 52 Filed 05/01/17 Page 21 of 36 -14- wrongful acts in question, it cannot state a claim. See In re Sagent Tech., Inc. Deriv. Litig., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1094-95 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing breach of fiduciary duty claims where plaintiffs pled “no facts showing how defendants that joined the board in late 2000 or in 2001 could be responsible for events that occurred in 1999”). Plaintiff has not indicated “which individual defendant or defendants were responsible for which alleged wrongful act” and, thus, its breach of fiduciary duty claims fail as a matter of law.
Filed March 6, 2017
A complaint that lumps together seemingly unrelated defendants fails to give them fair notice of the claims against them under Rule 8. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litig., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1094-1095 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988). A complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim against a particular defendant that is plausible, not merely conceivable.
Filed February 9, 2017
A Complaint that lumps together seemingly unrelated defendants fails to give them fair notice of the claims against them under Rule 8. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1094-1095 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988). A Complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim against a particular defendant that is plausible, not merely conceivable.
Filed September 30, 2016
The entire Complaint should be dismissed for this reason. See id.; see also In re Sagent Tech., Inc., 278 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("[T]he complaint fails to state a claim because plaintiffs do not indicate which individual defendant or defendants were responsible for which alleged wrongful act."). As Plaintiff's Complaint does not comply with basic pleading requirements, the entire Complaint should be dismissed for failure to satisfy with Rule 8. C. Plaintiff's First Cause Of Action Fails To State A Claim Against Moving Defendants Plaintiff alleges that Moving Defendants breached the terms of the Deed of Trust, 2010 Modification and 2014 Modification by failing to acknowledge a purported principal reduction and by demanding payment of principal purportedly contractually waived.