Rose et al v. Stephens Institute
Filing
47
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 31 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2012)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
SCOTT ROSE, et al.
8
Plaintiff(s),
No. C 09-5966 PJH
9
v.
10
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
STEPHENS INSTITUTE,
11
12
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
13
Defendant Stephens Institute’s motion to dismiss came on for hearing before this
14
court on June 27, 2012. Plaintiff-relators Scott Rose, Mary Aquino, Mitchell Nelson, and
15
Lucy Stearns (“plaintiffs”) appeared through their counsel, Stephen R. Jaffe and Martha A.
16
Boersch. Defendant Stephens Institute (“defendant”) appeared through its counsel, Steven
17
M. Gombos and Leland B. Altschuler. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the
18
motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good
19
cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second
20
amended complaint, as the complaint sufficiently states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and
21
meets the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).
22
In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant concurrently filed a request for judicial
23
notice. Because the court does find that judicial notice is appropriate here, defendant’s
24
request is hereby GRANTED.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2012
_____________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
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?