Richard Pfeffer v. Bruce C. Edwards et al

Filing 37

JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter. Having ordered that the motion to dismiss be granted in defendants' favor, and in light of plaintiff's intention to not file a further amended complaint, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. Plaintiff shall take nothing; 2. The action is dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice; and 3. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and defendants may seek to recover their costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12

HIGH YIELD FUND RETURN, G.P.,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case No. SACV14–00796 DOC (JCGx)

Plaintiff,
JUDGMENT

v.
BRUCE C. EDWARDS an individual;
JEFFREY W. BENCK an individual;
GREGORY S. CLARK an individual;
PAUL F. FOLINO an individual;
EUGENE J. FRANTZ an individual;
BEATRIZ V. INFANTE, an individual;
NERSI NAZARI an individual;
and DEAN A. YOOST, an individual;

[The Honorable David O. Carter]

Defendants.
EMULEX Corp.
Nominal Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
Case No. SACV14-00796 DOC (JCGx)

1
2

On May 21, 2014, plaintiff Richard Pfeffer filed this shareholder derivative
action against defendants Bruce C. Edwards, Jeffrey W. Benck, Gregory S. Clark,

3
4

Paul F. Folino, Eugene J. Frantz, Beatrice V. Infante, Nersi Nazari, and Dean A.

5

Yoost, and nominal defendant Emulex Corporation (“Emulex”). On July 14, 2014,

6

a verified amended shareholder’s derivative complaint was filed, in which plaintiff
7
8

High Yield Fund Return, G.P. was substituted in place of Richard Pfeffer as the

9

named plaintiff in the action. The amended complaint asserted, derivatively on

10
11
12

behalf of nominal defendant Emulex against all individual defendants, a single
cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

13

On August 15, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended

14
15

complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure. On December 8, 2014, the Court, having read and considered the papers

17

submitted by the parties, issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

18
19

and dismissing the action in its entirety, with leave to amend. With respect to a

20

further amended complaint, the Court’s order permitted plaintiff until January 23,

21

2015 to file any amended complaint. On January 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice

22
23

of intent not to file a further amended complaint.

24

///

25

///

26
27

///

28
-1-

JUDGMENT
Case No. SACV14-00796 DOC (JCGx)

1
2

Having ordered that the motion to dismiss be granted in defendants’ favor,
and in light of plaintiff’s intention to not file a further amended complaint, it is now

3
4
5

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
1. Plaintiff shall take nothing;

6

2. The action is dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice; and
7
8
9

3. The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and defendants may
seek to recover their costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: February 20, 2015

14

Honorable David O. Carter
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
IRI-360071650v1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

JUDGMENT
Case No. SACV14-00796 DOC (JCGx)