Alfus

Alfus v. Pyramid Technology Corp.

Good Law
764 F. Supp. 598·1991 WL 79999·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4967
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 11, 1991C-89-20184 RFPCalifornia5,627 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peckham, J.

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on defendants’ second motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and individual defendant Rollnick’s motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the first amended complaint in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff having remedied deficiencies in the original complaint, defendants’ second motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part for the reasons set forth herein.

INTRODUCTION

This is a securities fraud class action brought against Pyramid Technology Corp. (“Pyramid”), several of its officers and one of its outside directors (“Defendant Rolln-ick”). Previously, defendants moved the court to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and failed to satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition defendants sought the dismissal of the secondary liability claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting, the insider trading claim and the negligent misrepresentation claim. Defendant Rollnick joined the motion to dismiss, and…

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.