Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Adecco S.A.

Good Law

434 F. Supp. 2d 815·2006 WL 1698846·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41194

United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2006CIV. 04CV0129-M(WMC)California9,708 words

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

On January 30, 2006, this matter came on regularly for a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Scott H. Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP appeared for Plaintiffs. Laurie B. Smilan of Latham & Watkins, LLP appeared for the Defendants.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and applicable law, the Court finds the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) does not meet the pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(b)(1) and (2), and therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 783 (b) and 78(t)(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5. Plaintiffs allege violations of the statute and regulation on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Defendant Adecco S.A. (“Adecco” or “the Company”)…

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.