Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. et al

Filing 463

Notice and Order Providing Tentative Rulings re: 344 , 347 , 351 , 355 , 358 , 359 Daubert Motions and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of counsel. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/9/2019.(rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
11
12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

13

Case No.: 14cv2129-MMA (AGS)
NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING
TENTATIVE RULINGS RE:
DAUBERT MOTIONS AND
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
et al.,

16
17

[Doc. Nos. 344, 347, 351, 355, 358, 359]

Defendants.

18
19
20

On October 11, 2019, the parties in this action will appear before the Court for a

21

hearing on the parties’ Daubert motions and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

22

See Doc. Nos. 344, 347, 351, 355, 358, 359. In anticipation of the hearing, the Court

23

issues the following tentative rulings on the pending motions:

24

1.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony

25

of Dr. Steven Feinstein [Doc. No. 344]. The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Feinstein’s

26

opinions are not subject to exclusion under the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702

27

and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

28

2.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony
-1-

14cv2129-MMA (AGS)

1

of Chad Coffman, CFA [Doc. No. 347]. The Court tentatively finds that Mr. Coffman’s

2

opinions are not subject to exclusion under the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702

3

and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

4

3.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to exclude the

5

testimony of Dr. James Gibson [Doc. No. 351]. The Court tentatively finds that Dr.

6

Gibson’s opinions are subject to exclusion under the standards of Federal Rule of

7

Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

8

4.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

9

Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis [ Doc. No. 355]. The

10

Court tentatively grants Plaintiffs’ motion in part, and tentatively finds that Dr. Lewis

11

should be precluded from offering any market analysis opinion or testimony, set forth in

12

Section III of his expert report. The Court tentatively denies Plaintiffs’ motion in part,

13

and tentatively finds that any corrective disclosure opinion or testimony, as well as any

14

rebuttal opinion or testimony regarding disaggregation, the price maintenance theory of

15

inflation, and the constant dollar inflation methodology, are not subject to exclusion

16

under the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow

17

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

18

5.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony

19

of Dr. Randolph Bucklin [Doc. No. 358]. The Court tentatively finds that Dr. Bucklin’s

20

opinions are subject to exclusion under the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702

21

and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

22

6.

23

[Doc. No. 359].

24
25
26

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
a.

The Court tentatively denies Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim.
i.

The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs raise a genuine

27

dispute of material fact as to loss causation. The Court tentatively finds that a rational

28

jury could conclude that the August 13, 2014 disclosure constituted a corrective
-2-

14cv2129-MMA (AGS)

1

disclosure.

2

ii.

The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs raise a triable issue of

3

material fact on the element of damages, as the appropriateness of the constant dollar

4

inflation methodology is a question for the jury.

5

iii.

The Court tentatively finds that a rational jury could conclude

6

that each of the challenged statements were false or misleading at the time they were

7

made. S.E.C. v. Todd, 642 F. 3d 1207, 1220 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Generally, whether a

8

public statement is misleading, or whether adverse facts were adequately disclosed is a

9

mixed question to be decided by the trier of fact[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

10

iv.

The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs raise a triable issue of

11

material fact on the element of materiality based in part upon Mr. Coffman’s expert

12

testimony and analyst feedback. See Retail Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union Local 338

13

Ret. Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 845 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[M]ateriality is

14

generally an issue of mixed fact and law, best left to the fact-finder[.]”).

15

v.

The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs raise a genuine

16

dispute of material fact on the element of scienter. The Court tentatively finds that a

17

rational jury could conclude that the Individual Defendants made each of the challenged

18

statements either “intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.” Zucco Partners, LLC v.

19

Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Dauo Sys., Inc., 411

20

F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, the Court tentatively finds that a rational

21

jury could conclude that the Individual Defendants’ scienter confers scienter on

22

Defendant SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. See In re Apple Computer, Inc., 127 F. App’x

23

296, 303 (9th Cir. 2005).

24
25
26
27
28

b.

The Court tentatively denies Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Section 20(a) claims.
i.

The Court tentatively finds that a rational jury could conclude

that there has been a primary violation of federal securities law.
ii.

The Court tentatively finds that whether Blackstone and the
-3-

14cv2129-MMA (AGS)

1

Individual Defendants are controlling persons within the meaning of Section 20(a) are

2

questions for the jury. See Todd, 642 F.3d at 1223 (“Whether [the defendant] is a

3

controlling person is an intensely factual question”) (quoting Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d

4

1363, 1382 (9th Cir. 1994)).

5
6
7

As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of
counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11

Dated: October 9, 2019

_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

14cv2129-MMA (AGS)