Hurst

Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 17, 20215:20-cv-04036California4,243 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 GREGORY A. HURST, Case No. 20-cv-04036-BLF

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants.

12 Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this putative securities class action. 13 ECF 53. For the reasons discussed at the July 29, 2021 motion hearing and further explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. I. BACKGROUND 17 On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Gregory Hurst filed a securities class action suit in this Court 18 alleging violations of various securities laws against Enphase Energy, Inc. (“Enphase”), Enphase 19 CEO Badrinarayanan Kothandaraman, and Enphase CFO Eric Branderiz (collectively, 20 “Defendants”). Complaint, ECF 1. On January 22, 2021, Hurst filed an amended complaint. First 21 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF 52. The FAC alleges that between February 26, 2019 and June 16,…

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.