Wenger

Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc.

Good Law
2 F. Supp. 2d 1231·1998 WL 199082·1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14690
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1998C-97-20609 RMWCalifornia9,656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Whyte, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Before the court are two motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“Reform Act”). One motion was brought on behalf of defendants Lumisys, Inc. (“Lumi-sys” or “Company”), Stephen J. Weiss, Craig Klosterman, John M. Burgess, Linden J. Li-voni, Eystein G. Thordarson, Douglas G. De-Vivo, Jesse I. Treu, Helios Partners Limited Partnership and Bala S. Manían (together, the ‘Lumisys defendants”). The other was brought on behalf of defendants Hambrecht & Quist LLC (“Hambrecht & Quist”), UBS Securities, Inc. (“UBS Securities”) and Volpe Welty & Co. (“Volpe Welty”) (together, the “underwriters”). The court scheduled oral argument for March 6, 1998, but after the parties stipulated to the court’s tentative ruling dismissing the complaint in its entirety, no oral argument was held. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants both motions to dismiss with leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gary Wenger brings this securities class action lawsuit…

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.