Stephen Merritt v. Barclays PLC

1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 Case No.: 2:23-cv-09217-MEMF-KS STEPHEN MERRITT, Individually and on 13 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

AMENDED* ORDER DENYING STALEY’S

14 Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 56] AND

GRANTING IN PART BARCLAYS BANK’S

15 v. MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 58] 16 17 BARCLAYS PLC, JAMES E. STALEY, and

NIGEL HIGGINS,

18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant James Staley (ECF No. 56) and a 22 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Barclays PLC (“Barclays Bank”) and Nigel Higgins (ECF 23 No. 58). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Staley’s Motion to Dismiss and 24 GRANTS IN PART Barclays Bank’s Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. 25 26 27 *The Court issues this amended order in response to Defendant Barclays PLC’s Request for Clarification (ECF No. 85). The Court amends the mentions of “Barclays Bank PLC” in both the caption and the 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 I. Factual Allegations1 3 …