Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 256

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 255 stipulation and 250 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Consolidated Complaint; Proposed 3rd amended consolidate complaint to be filed within 30 days ; Memorandums addressing TAC to be filed by 10/5/2010; Oppositions to be filed by 11/1/2010; No replies; Matter to be deemed submitted upon completion of briefing; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 8/26/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2010)

Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al

Doc. 256

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS. No. C 07-6140 MHP / / MEMORANDUM & ORDER Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On March 5, 2010, defendants VeriFone Systems, Inc., William Atkinson, Craig Bondy, Douglas Bergeron, Paul Periolat and Barry Zwarenstein (collectively "defendants") filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC"). The motions were fully briefed and oral argument was held on May 17, 2010. On July 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint ("TAC"). Defendants do not oppose the motion for leave to file a TAC; however, defendants intend to move to dismiss the TAC. The court was prepared to issue an order on defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC, and is surprised that defendants did not oppose the proposed TAC on futility grounds rather than waiting to attack it on yet another motion to dismiss as they suggest is their intention. The court deems it appropriate and more expeditious to proceed in the following manner. Plaintiffs may, if they choose, incorporate facts from the court's order in the derivative action against VeriFone. If they do so, they shall submit within twenty (20) days of the date of this order a new version of the TAC and the current version at Docket No. 253 will be deemed withdrawn. The dismissal motions have already been extensively briefed by the parties and the court finds it appropriate to short-circuit yet another full round of briefing. Thus, by October 5, 2010, defendants shall file a memorandum of points and authorities addressing the new TAC and why the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

new allegations made in the TAC are not sufficient to satisfy the pleading standards set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). In an effort to cabin the extensive briefing that has already occurred in this action, defendants' briefs in support shall not exceed 25 pages total, and focus on why the new allegations are not sufficient to meet PSLRA pleading standards, including whether scienter is adequately pled. By November 1, 2010, plaintiffs shall file an opposition not to exceed 25 pages. No reply briefs will be considered. The motion shall be deemed submitted on the papers upon filing of plaintiffs' opposition. The briefing should eschew redundancy and may rely on and incorporate by reference, citing to pages, lines and paragraphs, prior briefs, arguments and pleadings that may be relevant to the new TAC. The parties are apprised that the court has already reviewed the extensive briefing filed in this case and does not want a reiteration of the same arguments. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2010

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MARILYN HALL PATEL United States District Court Judge Northern District of California

2