Peter Gottlieb v. Convergent Technologies, Peter Gottlieb, Roberta Gottlieb, Stanley Siedman v. Convergent Technologies, Peter Gottlieb, Roberta Gottlieb, Stanley Siedman, and Mark W. Gaffney v. Convergent Technologies

942 F.2d 791 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Peter GOTTLIEB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee. Peter GOTTLIEB, Roberta Gottlieb, Stanley Siedman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee. Peter GOTTLIEB, Roberta Gottlieb, Stanley Siedman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Mark W. GAFFNEY, Appellant, v. CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 90-15084, 90-16576 and 90-16817. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 10, 1991. Decided Aug. 26, 1991. Before HUG, SCHROEDER and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 Peter Gottlieb and a certified class of stockholders of Convergent Technologies, Inc. ("Convergent") appeals the summary judgment entered against them in this securities fraud case. They argue that they have established a genuine issue of fact that the management of Convergent deliberately inflated earnings in the second quarter of 1984 and provided misleading…