IN RE Talis Biomedical Securities Litigation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 28, 20233:22-cv-00105California614 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

19 In an order filed December 9, 2022, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the 20 consolidated amended complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On January 13, 2023, 21 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that narrowed this action to three categories of false and 22 misleading statements and material omissions; dropped the Exchange Act claims; removed any 23 challenged statements that the Court indicated may be forward-looking or subject to the bespeaks 24 caution doctrine; added three new confidential witnesses; and added a number of new, specific 25 allegations, including about the previous five confidential witnesses. Defendants have again moved 26 to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs have failed to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in 27 the December 9 order. The Court concludes that the amended complaint states claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. As an initial matter, the Court finds that Rule 8’s plausibility standard applies because the amended complaint solely asserts non-fraud Securities Act claims. Applying that standard, the complaint plausibly alleges that the Registration…

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.