In re LeapFrog Enterprise, Inc. Securities Litigation

Good Law
200 F. Supp. 3d 987·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101292
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 2, 2016Case No. 15-cv-00347-EMCCalifornia10,462 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

*991 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have filed a class action against LeapFrog Enterprises Inc., and two of its officers, John Barbour (“Barbour”) and Raymond L. Arthur (“Arthur”), for violations of federal securities laws. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) focuses on the alleged *992 ly false and misleading statements about LeapFrog’s inventory, the. roll out of LeapTV, LeapFrog’s financial guidance, and accounting. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

II. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

A. Defendants’ Request

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice over nine categories of documents or to consider them under the doctrine of incorporation by reference: .(1) LeapFrog’s press releases filed with the SEC as attachments to Forms 8-K (Exs. 1, 4, 8, 14, 16); (2) LeapFrog’s earnings and conference call transcripts (Exs. 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15); (8) LeapFrog’s Forms 10-Q filed with the SEC (Exs. 13, 17); (4) LeapFrog’s Forms 10-K filed with the SEC (Exs. 3, 19); (5) LeapFrog’s Forms DEF 14A filed with'the SEC (Exs. 20, 21); (6)…

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.