In Re Pixar Securities Litigation

Good Law
450 F. Supp. 2d 1096·2006 WL 2619331
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2006C 05-04290 JSWCalifornia5,336 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Lead plaintiff Frederick P. Arndt (“Plaintiff’) brings this action individually and on behalf of all other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of defendant Pixar (“Pixar”) between February 10 and June 30, 2005 (the “Class Period”), pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Now before the Court is the motion by defendants Pixar, Steven P. Jobs (“Jobs”), Edwin E. Catmull (“Catmull”), and Simon T. Bax (“Bax”) (collectively “Defendants”) to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). Defendants move to dismiss asserting that Plaintiff fails to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(9).

The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and ripe for decision. The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7 — 1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for…

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.