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