Zamir
Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Honsammartino, J.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No.-58)
Presently before the Court is Defendants Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Andrew S. Clark, and Daniel J. Devine’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“MTD,” ECF No. 58). Also before the Court are Lead Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 61), and Defendants’ Reply in Support of, (“Reply,” ECF No. 63), Defendants’ MTD. The Court vacated the hearing and took this matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 62.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ MTD.
BACKGROUND
I. The Defendants
Defendant Bridgepoint provides for-profit higher education through two wholly-owned subsidiaries,'Ashford University and the University of-the Rockies. (Second Am. Class Action Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 3, 24, ECF No. 57.) Its common stock is publicly traded on the.New York Stock Exchange. (Id. .¶ 24.)
*1063 Defendant Clark is a co-founder of Defendant Bridgepoint, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, President, and a director. (Id. ¶ 25.) Defendant Devine served as Defendant…