Kain
Kain v. ACM Research, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFREY KAIN, Case No. 20-cv-09241-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
ACM RESEARCH, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 64, 66 Defendants.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.1 Kain has not alleged a material misstatement or omission relating to any of the five theories outlined in the motion to dismiss and opposition. Indeed, the fact that the Court had to resort to identifying possible theories of securities fraud from the parties’ motions, rather than from the complaint itself, is the first sign the complaint is materially deficient. The complaint is a series of allegations “predicated on the [J Capital Reports’] insistence that [ACM’s] financial reporting does not add up.” Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., 2021 WL 3633837, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021). But those vague allegations, without more, do not meet the PSLRA’s heightened standard for alleging securities fraud. See Metzler Investment GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A litany of alleged false statements, unaccompanied by the pleading of specific facts…