Mutchka

Mutchka v. Harris

Good Law

373 F. Supp. 2d 1021·2005 WL 1414304·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11388

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 8, 2005SACV0534JVSANXCalifornia3,181 words

Opinion

Selna, J.

Order re Motion to Dismiss

Defendants have filed the instant motion to dismiss Charles Mutchka and Pauline Mutchka’s (collectively, “the Mutchkas”) Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in full.

I. BACKGROUND

The Mutchkas have filed this action, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the advisors, trustees, and affiliates of the Alianz Family of Mutual Funds (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint asserts that Defendants failed to ensure that the PIMCO funds participated in securities class actions for which they were eligible.

The following five causes of action are alleged: (I) violation of § 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”) ; (2) violation of § 36(b) of the ICA; (3) violation of § 47(b) of the ICA; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) negligence. Defendants, through the instant motion, seek to dismiss all five claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss will not be granted unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6)…

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.