In Re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Lit.

In Re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation

Good Law
452 F. Supp. 2d 1005·2006 WL 2668970·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41193
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 2, 200699CV0151-L(NLS)California13,499 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter came on regularly for a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Patrick J. Coughlin and Tor Gronborg of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP appeared for the Plaintiffs. William F. Sullivan of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker appeared for the Defendants.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and applicable law, the Court finds the TAC’s allegations regarding Albuterol Spiros fail to meet the pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(b)(l) and (2), and that the TAC’s allegations regarding Defendants’ statements about Ceclor CD properly state a claim under the PSLRA against certain Defendants. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of purchasers of shares of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Dura” or the “Company”) securities from April 15, 1997 to February 24, 1998 (“Class Period”) including those purchasers who acquired their…

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.