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)

Download PDF
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?