Moradpour

Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20223:21-cv-01486California1,398 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 MEYSAM MORADPOUR, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01486-SI

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' v. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 104 Defendants.

11 Before the Court is defendants’ request that the Court consider twenty six documents in evaluating the pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. Dkt. No. 104. District courts generally may not consider material outside the pleadings when assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) permits courts considering a motion to dismiss governed by the PSLRA to consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a…

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.