Gould

Gould v. Harris

Good Law
929 F. Supp. 353·1996 WL 339853·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12007
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 12, 1996CV-95-2584 KMW (VAPx)California4,180 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wardlaw, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN UNDERTAKING

The Court has considered defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on March 20, 1996, and has reviewed all the material filed by the plaintiffs and defendants in connection with the Motion. Based upon all briefs, declarations, and other evidence submitted by the parties, the oral argument of counsel, as well as all files and records in this case, the Court hereby grants the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second and fifth causes of action with 20 days leave to amend. The Court denies defendants’ request for an undertaking.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a securities fraud class action filed on behalf of the purchasers of securities of Guardian Bancorp (“Guardian”) between October 6, 1993 and August 1, 1994 (“the Class Period”). Plaintiffs Tamra Gould (“Gould”), Gould Trading Company (“Gould Trading”), an Ohio corporation, and Steven Berger IRA (“Berger”) (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”) sue on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals who purchased securities from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.