In Re Calpine Corporation Securities Litigation

Good Law
288 F. Supp. 2d 1054·2003 WL 22351414·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16296
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 2003C 02-1200 SBACalifornia18,301 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS

This is a consolidated putative securities class action brought against defendant Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”) and other defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77o. Mansukh B. Makadia and Laborers Local 1298 Pension Fund (“Plaintiffs”) have been named co-lead plaintiffs for the putative class.

Now before the Court are two motions to dismiss brought by two sets of defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): (1) the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (the “Individuals’ Motion”), filed by defendants Peter Cartwright, Ann B. Curtis, Charles B. Clark, Jr., E. James Macias, and Paul J. Posoli (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and (2) Defendant Calpine Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“Calpine’s Motion”), filed by defendant Calpine alone. Having read and considered…

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.