The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc.

I. BACKGROUND

21 The parties are familiar with the facts alleged in this securities class action, which the 22 Court recited in its order on the first set of motions to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 154. As relevant 23 here, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against numerous defendants in 24 February 2023, alleging that Defendant C3.ai, Inc. (“C3”) and several of its individual officers 25 26 1 Defendant Lorenzo Simonelli and Defendant Baker Hughes filed motions to join Defendant 27 C3.ai, Inc.’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. See Dkt. Nos. 187, 188. Because made false or misleading statements concerning the nature of C3’s joint venture with Defendant Baker Hughes. Dkt. No. 71. Defendants moved to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 105, 109, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the C3 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted Baker Hughes’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 154. Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 167, and Defendants again moved to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 167, 170, 171. Before the Court resolved the pending motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a Third…