Muddy Waters Capital LLC v. John Does 1-10
Filing
73
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PARTIALLY TO LIFT PSLRA DISCOVERY STAY. The Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Amended Complaint, as alleged against Tullett, is dismissed without prejudice. To the extent MWC seeks an order allowing it to propound interrogatories to Tullett, the Motion Partially to Lift PSLRA Discovery Stay is denied. To the extent MWC seeks an order allowing it to continue seeking discovery from Tullett pursuant to the Letter of Request, said Motion is granted. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 16, 2020. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2020)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MUDDY WATERS CAPITAL LLC,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
v.
TULLETT PREBON (SECURITIES)
LTD., and JOHN DOES 1-10,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-01293-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PARTIALLY TO
LIFT PSLRA DISCOVERY STAY
Re: Doc. Nos. 50, 52
12
13
Before the Court are the following two motions: (1) defendant Tullett Prebon
14
(Securities) Ltd.’s (“Tullett”) “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Under F.R.C.P.
15
12(b)(2) and (6),” filed May 18, 2020, and (2) plaintiff Muddy Waters Capital LLC’s
16
(“MWC”) “Motion Partially to Lift PSLRA Discovery Stay,” filed May 14, 2020. The
17
matters came on regularly for hearing on October 16, 2020. John P. Stigi III and Bridget
18
J. Russell of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP appeared on behalf of Tullett.
19
Jordan Fletcher of Fletcher Law PLLC and Gabriela Kipnis of Conrad & Metlitzky LLP
20
appeared on behalf of MWC. The Court, having considered the parties’ respective
21
written submissions as well as the arguments of counsel at the hearing and, for the
22
reasons stated at the hearing, rules as follows:
23
(1) The Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of
24
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, the undisputed evidence
25
demonstrates Tullett neither “purposefully direct[ed] [its] activities or consummate[d]
26
some transaction with the forum or resident thereof” nor “purposefully avail[ed] [itself] of
27
the privilege of conducting activities in the forum.” See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
28
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the Amended
Complaint, as alleged against Tullett, is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) The Motion Partially to Lift PSLRA Discovery Stay is hereby GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART:
(a) To the extent MWC seeks an order allowing it to propound
interrogatories to Tullett, the Motion is hereby DENIED.
(b) To the extent MWC seeks an order allowing it to continue seeking
8
discovery from Tullett pursuant to the Letter of Request issued by Magistrate Judge Sallie
9
Kim (see Doc. No. 37), the Motion is hereby GRANTED.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Dated: October 16, 2020
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?