In re Nutanix, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ARAVIND BHONAGIRI, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03817-WHO

Plaintiffs,

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO

v. DISMISS

DHEERAJ PANDEY, et al., Dkt. Nos. 51, 52 Defendants.

Defendant Nutanix Inc. (“Nutanix”) and the individual defendants in this action (“Individual Defendants”) separately move to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brought by Plaintiffs Aravind Bhonagiri, Ashwin Juneja, and TJ Park (“Plaintiffs”). Nutanix asserts that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the FAC because they did not adequately plead demand futility upon Nutanix’s Board of Directors as required by Rule 23.1. I agree, and also find that the FAC fails to adequately state a claim at least against all defendants except Pandey and Williams. Accordingly, both motions are GRANTED. BACKGROUND This action arises out of multiple statements made by Nutanix, through its public filings and statements of its officers, relating to its investments in…