Fleming

Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 15, 20224:16-cv-06557California7,068 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

19 A. Factual and Procedural Background 20 New York Hotel Trades Council (“Lead Plaintiff”) asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 21 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 against Impax Laboratories Inc. 22 (“Impax”), George Wilkinson, Larry Hsu, Bryan Reasons, and Carole Ben-Maimon (collectively, 23 “Defendants”). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint with leave to amend, 24 Dkt. No. 66, after which Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) asserting the 25 same claims. Dkt. No. 71. On August 12, 2019, the Court dismissed the SAC with prejudice, and 26 Lead Plaintiff appealed. Dkt. Nos. 86–87. 27 After the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court’s dismissal, Defendants moved for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Dkt. No. 89; App. Dkt. No. 42. The Sheet Metal Workers’ Fund (“Class Representative”) also jointly moved with Lead Plaintiff to allow the Sheet Metal Workers’ Fund to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. App. Dkt. No. 43. In March 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and denied the motion to intervene “without prejudice to…

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.