Eric Ardolino v. MannKind Corporation et al

Filing 64

JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (ah)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ERIC ARDOLINO, individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-CV-00348 RGK
(GJSx)
JUDGMENT

v.
MANNKIND CORPORATION,
ALFRED MANN, MATTHEW
PFEFFER, and HAKAN EDSTROM,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN DIEGO

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2:16-CV-00348 RGR (GJSX)

1

Whereas, on June 15, 2016, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other

2

persons similarly situated, filed the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of

3

the Federal Securities Laws. (Dkt. No. 49.)

4

Whereas, on June 29, 2016, Defendants MannKind Corporation, Hakan

5

Edstrom, and Matthew Pfeffer (“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss the

6

Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 50.)

7
8

Whereas, on July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 53.)

9
10

Whereas, on August 8, 2016, Defendants filed their Reply in Support of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 54.)

11

Whereas, on August 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental

12

Authority in Further Support of Lead Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

13

Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 56.)

14

Whereas, on August 22, 2016, Defendants filed their Objection and Response

15

to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Authority in Further Support of Opposition to Defendants’

16

Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 58.)

17

Whereas, on August 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to

18

Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to all claims and

19

without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 60.)

20
21

THEREFORE,

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED,

ADJUDGED

AND

DECREED THAT:

22

1.

This action is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants;

23

2.

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this judgment and its previous

24

orders

25

//

26

//

27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN DIEGO

1.

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2:16-CV-00348 RGR (GJSX)

1
2

3.

The Court, finding that no reason exists for delay, hereby directs the

Clerk to enter this final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

3
4
5
6

Dated: September 19, 2016
Hon. R. Gary Klausner
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN DIEGO

2.

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2:16-CV-00348 RGR (GJSX)