Kane

Kane v. Zisapel

Good Law
32 F. App'x 905
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 27, 2002No. 00-16344; D.C. No. CV-96-20652-RMWCalifornia447 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ fifth amended complaint with prejudice. Although we do not address each of the complaint’s 105 paragraphs in this disposition, we have reviewed the entire complaint and agree with the district court that it falls short of the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), as interpreted by this circuit in In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1999) (“SGI”).

Plaintiffs’ allegations of false statements regarding Madge products, integration with Lannet and the relationship with CISCO are not pled with sufficient specificity. Although the complaint is replete with accusations, there is no information regarding the source of the plaintiffs’ allegations or when and how the defendants acquired knowledge about alleged problems that would make their statements false or misleading at the time they were made. See id. at 984-85 ; Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 432 (9th Cir.2001). Plaintiffs’ allegations of accounting fraud suffer the same shortcomings.

Nor do the allegations regarding insider stock sales and stock-based mergers indicate the requisite…

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.