Stein v. Craver, Jr. et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, it must be filed within 21 days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/14/2016. (knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IN RE EDISON INTERNATIONAL
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,

Case No.: 15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

[Docket No. 12]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

13
14
15
16
17
18

This is a shareholder derivative action seeking to recover on behalf of nominal

19

defendant Edison International brought against Edison International’s Board of Directors

20

(“the Board”). The Consolidated Derivative Complaint (“Consolidated Complaint” or

21

“CDC”) asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and violation of

22

§ 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act based on Defendants’ alleged awareness of

23

unreported reportable ex parte communications with the California Public Utility

24

Commission (“CPUC”) concerning the settlement of the shutdown of the San Onofre

25

Generating Station (“SONGS”) and approval of a settlement that ultimately included $20

26

million in research funding recommended by the CPUC. Defendants move to dismiss

27

based on Plaintiffs’ failure to sufficiently plead demand futility arguing there are no
1
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

particularized facts showing a majority of the Board even knew about any of the ex parte

2

communications later found reportable or that there was anything improper about the

3

settlement modification the Board approved. Because Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to create

4

a reasonable doubt as to whether a majority of the Board faced a substantial likelihood of

5

liability sufficient to make a demand on the Board futile, the Motion to Dismiss is

6

GRANTED. However, given this is Plaintiffs’ first challenged pleading in this case,

7

Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint.

8

BACKGROUND1

9

Edison is a partial owner of SONGS, a nuclear generating station, through its

10

ownership of Southern California Edison (“SCE”). Following the discovery of a leak in a

11

steam tube, SONGS was shut down in January 2012 and eventually shut down

12

permanently. (CDC ¶¶ 2, 28-32.) The CPUC initiated an investigation on October 25,

13

2012, Order Instituting Investigation (“OII”), to address the allocation of costs of the shut

14

down as between the utility owners and consumers. (CDC ¶¶ 3, 33-34.)

15

A settlement among the parties,2 was reached on March 27, 2014. (CDC ¶ 35.) On

16

April 3, 2014, the settlement was submitted to the CPUC for approval. (CDC ¶ 36.) On

17

September 5, 2014, the CPUC requested the parties to the settlement adopt a modification

18

to the settlement providing for $4 million in annual funding for five years3 for a University

19

of California entity to research “devices and methodologies to reduce emissions at existing

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The Court is not making findings of fact, but rather summarizing some of the most
relevant allegations of the Consolidated Complaint. Although not all allegations are
noted, the Court has considered the entire pleading.
2
The Consolidated Complaint alleges the settling parties were Edison, San Diego Gas
and Electric (“SDG&E”), the Utility Reform Network (“TURN”), Office of Raterpayer
Advocate (“ORA”), Coalition of California Utility Employees, and Friends of the Earth.
(CDC ¶ 35.)
3
Plaintiffs’ Opposition references $25 million for the GHG Initiative, however, the
Consolidated Derivative Complaint alleges the GHG Initiative, approved by the Board on
November 20, 2014, was for $4 million a year for five years. (CDC ¶ 5.)
2
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

and future California power plants tasked to replace the lost SONGS generation” (“GHG

2

Initiative”). (CDC ¶ 37.)

3

The modification was adopted by all parties, and on September 24, 2014, the

4

parties submitted an amended settlement agreement with the modification requested by

5

the CPUC. (CDC ¶ 38.) On November 20, 2014, the CPUC approved the amended

6

settlement. (CDC ¶ 39.)

7

Plaintiffs allege the Board members were aware of the significance of the

8

shutdown of SONGS, their ethical obligations regarding it, and the need to comply with

9

CPUC rules governing ex parte communications with CPUC decisionmakers. (CDC ¶¶

10

41-45, 114-121.) Plaintiffs also allege that on September 25, 2014 an email was sent

11

from Edison’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and two other SCE executives to

12

Company personnel stating “[w]hile we are well aware of the CPUC’s ex parte

13

communications rule, this situation makes clear that awareness is not enough.” (CDC ¶

14

44.)

15

On February 9, 2015, Edison announced that it was strengthening its policy on

16

communications with the CPUC to exceed current CPUC requirements. (CDC ¶¶ 45, 54;

17

Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”),4 Ex. K.) The same day, Edison filed a Late-Filed

18

Notice of Ex Parte Communication (“February 9 Notice”) in the OII proceeding

19

disclosing a March 26, 2013 meeting that took place at an industry event in Warsaw,

20

Poland. (CDC ¶ 8.) The February 9 Notice indicates the meeting included both then

21

SCE Executive Vice President of External Relations Stephen Pickett and former CPUC

22

President Michael Peevey and was being reported late because Pickett had revealed

23

further information the week before that suggested the meeting may have crossed into a

24

substantive communication. (CDC ¶¶ 51, 53.) Shortly before this announcement and

25
26
27

The Court grants Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice as to all documents relied on
or referred to in the Consolidated Complaint.
4

3
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

disclosure, Peevey’s home was searched as part of an Attorney General investigation and

2

notes of the Warsaw meeting were found, although the contents of the notes were not

3

disclosed until April 2015, shortly after Edison and the Attorney General provided them

4

to the CPUC. (CDC ¶¶ 52, 63-65.) This prompted a demand by the CPUC on April 14,

5

2015 for Edison to produce more documents related to settlement discussions. (CDC ¶

6

66.)

7

On April 29, 2015, Edison produced many documents in response to the April 14,

8

2015 Order and more documents in response to further ALJ orders. (CDC ¶¶ 73-83.)

9

Included in the document productions was a June 6, 2013 email from Defendant

10

Theodore Craver, Edison’s CEO, President, and Board Chair, to Board members Jagjeet

11

Bindra, Richard Schlosberg, Peter Taylor, and Brett White that notes two phone calls

12

between Craver and Peevey. (CDC ¶ 75.) The email notes the initial call was

13

interrupted, prompting a second call. (Id.) These calls were not found to be reportable in

14

the ALJ’s August 5, 2015 Order or the CPUC’s December 3, 2015 decision. (RJN Exs. E

15

& G.) The ALJ’s August 5, 2015 Order explained that they were not reportable because

16

they conveyed only “the objective fact that SCE would permanently shut down SONGS.”

17

(RJN Ex. E at 241-42.) Also produced was a declaration from Pickett disclosing that he

18

briefed Craver and three SCE executives on the Warsaw meeting and followed up with an

19

email summarizing the elements of a possible settlement if SONGS was permanently shut

20

down. (CDC ¶ 74.)5 Another declaration from Litzinger revealed a meeting with Peevey

21

and CPUC Commissioner Michael Florio on May 2, 2014 in which Plaintiffs allege that

22
23
24
25
26
27

Under the CPUC’s rules, communications between an interested party and a CPUC
decisionmaker are not entirely prohibited. Procedural inquiries about scheduling, filing
deadlines and the like are not required to be reported. However, if they are substantive,
they must be reported. Additionally, as explained in both the ALJ’s August 5, 2015
Order and the CPUC’s December 3, 2015 decision, one-way communications by a
decisionmaker to a party are not reportable ex parte communications, but might become
reportable depending on the response from the party.
5

4
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

Peevey conveyed that he was pleased with the settlement, but noted the GHG Initiative

2

was not included. (CDC ¶ 77.)

3

On August 5, 2015, the ALJ issued an Order requiring Edison to show cause why it

4

should not be found in violation of the CPUC rules on ex parte communications for ten

5

ex parte communications that were not timely reported. (CDC ¶¶ 84-88.) Two of the

6

identified communications related to the GHG Initiative and occurred before the CPUCs

7

September 2014 request to add the GHG Initiative to the settlement. (CDC ¶ 86.) On

8

October 27, 2015, a proposed ruling from the ALJ affirmed eight violations of CPUC

9

rules and imposed a $16.7 million fine, $16.5 million of which was attributable to the

10

March 26, 2013 Warsaw meeting. (CDC ¶¶ 93-101.) None of the identified unreported

11

reportable ex parte communications involved any director other than Craver. The

12

CPUC’s December 3, 2015 decision formally adopted the ALJ’s ruling. (RJN, Ex. G.)

13

The decision noted the prejudice to the other parties in not knowing that Peevey and

14

some at SCE were considering a shut down and allocation of the costs of it, as well as

15

Peevey’s advocacy for the GHG Initiative, when others were in the dark about it. (Id. at

16

309.) The decision also found SCE’s oversight of its executives’ contacts with CPUC

17

decisionmakers was lax and required Edison to develop a public website to track all non-

18

public communications by SCE representatives with CPUC decisionmakers. (Id. at 271,

19

309.) These and other disclosures prompted the other parties to the settlement to seek

20

sanctions against Edison and request the CPUC modify or overturn the settlement. (CDC

21

¶¶ 89, 102.)

22

Although not included in the operative complaint, Plaintiffs additionally assert in

23

their Opposition that an unsealed search warrant reflects that the Attorney General

24

believed that Peevey used his position to influence SCE to include the GHG Initiative,

25

Pickett and Peevey knowingly conspired to engage in ex parte communications about the

26

SONGS OII to SCE’s advantage, and that the Attorney General was investigating felony

27

charges. (Pls.’ Opp’n, Declaration of Eric Zagar, Ex. 1.)
5
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1
2

DISCUSSION
The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead demand futility because

3

the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint do not create a reasonable doubt that a

4

majority of the Board (5 of 9) faced a substantial likelihood of liability for the unreported

5

reportable ex parte communications that occurred or for adopting the GHG Initiative.

6

There are no particularized facts showing a majority of the Board even knew about the

7

unreported ex parte communications or knew that there was anything improper about the

8

GHG Initiative.

9

A derivative action is an “extraordinary process” in which the court permits a

10

shareholder to “step into the corporation’s shoes and to seek in its right the restitution he

11

could not demand in his own.” Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2011).

12

“The normal rule is that a company is run by its management, and the corporation itself

13

has the right to make claims.” Id. at 1011. Accordingly, a shareholder is required to

14

demonstrate “strict compliance” with both federal procedural requirements and the

15

applicable substantive law before he is able to “wrest control” from the board of directors.

16

Potter v. Hughes, 546 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). This threshold requirement to

17

pursue a derivative action exists “to implement ‘the basic principle of corporate governance

18

that the decisions of a corporation — including the decision to initiate litigation — should

19

be made by the board of directors or the majority of shareholders.’” Rosenbloom v. Pyott,

20

765 F.3d 1137, 1148 (9th Cir. 2014).

21

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, a shareholder who seeks to bring a

22

derivative suit must either first demand action from the board, or “plead with particularity

23

the reasons why such demand would have been futile.” Id. at 1148 (quoting In re Silicon

24

Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 989 (9th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds

25

by Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322-24 (2007)). “[T]he

26

substantive law which determines whether demand is, in fact, futile is provided by the state

27

of incorporation of the entity on whose behalf the plaintiff is seeking relief.” Id. The Court
6
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

agrees with the parties that in this case California law controls the demand futility analysis

2

and that California law follows Delaware law on demand futility.

3

I.

Demand Futility Tests

4

The parties both acknowledge the Rales and Aronson tests that have developed under

5

Delaware law to evaluate demand futility. Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 934 (Del.

6

1993); Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 814 (Del. 1984). In Defendants’ Motion to

7

Dismiss, they argue the Rales test applies because Plaintiffs do not allege any decision by

8

the Board. Rather, Plaintiffs allege the Board failed to act regarding the reporting of ex

9

parte communications. The Rales test is applied when the “directors have made no decision

10

relating to the subject of the derivative suit,” including “where the subject of the derivative

11

suit is not a business decision of the board.” Rales, 634 A.2d 927, 933-34. Under the Rales

12

test “a court must determine whether or not the particularized factual allegations of a

13

derivative stockholder complaint create a reasonable doubt that, as of the time the

14

complaint is filed, the board of directors could have properly exercised its independent and

15

disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand.” Id. at 934.

16

Plaintiffs argue in Opposition that the Aronson test applies because the decision to

17

approve the settlement, that included the GHG Initiative, was a Board decision. The

18

Aronson test applies “[w]hen a shareholder challenges a decision of a board of directors.”

19

Rosenbloom, 765 F.3d at 1149. Under the Aronson test, the Court must determine

20

“whether, under the particularized facts alleged, a reasonable doubt is created that: (1) the

21

directors are disinterested and independent and (2) the challenged transaction was

22

otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment.” Aronson, 473 A.2d at

23

814.

24

However, Plaintiffs go on to argue that it does not matter which is applied because

25

the Ninth Circuit recently explained that in some cases it does not matter whether Aronson

26

or Rales applies [because] under either approach, demand is excused if Plaintiffs’

27

particularized allegations create a reasonable doubt as to whether a majority of the board
7
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

of directors faces a substantial likelihood of personal liability for breaching the duty of

2

loyalty.” Rosenbloom, 765 F.3d at 1150.6 “The duty of loyalty, in turn, is violated ‘where

3

directors fail to act in the face of a known duty to act, thereby demonstrating a conscious

4

disregard for their responsibilities and failing to discharge the non-exculpable fiduciary

5

duty of loyalty in good faith.’” Id. “If a majority of the Board had actual or constructive

6

knowledge of violations of the law [as Plaintiffs argue here] and did nothing, it violated its

7

duty of loyalty and faces a substantial likelihood of liability.” Id. at 1151.

8

The Court finds that the allegations “do not create a reasonable doubt as to whether

9

a majority of the board of directors faces a substantial likelihood of personal liability for

10

breaching the duty of loyalty.” Id. at 1050. Additionally, the allegations do not support

11

demand futility under the Aronson or Rales test because the Consolidated Complaint lacks

12

nonconclusory allegations that a majority of the Board even knew about or should have

13

known about the unreported reportable ex parte communications or knew there was

14

anything wrong with approving the GHG Initiative requested by the CPUC and approved

15

by all other parties to the settlement.

16

Additionally, Plaintiffs do not dispute that, in determining liability, the Court takes

17

into consideration the exculpatory provisions in Edison’s certificate of incorporation

18

subject to the limitations in California Corporations Code § 204(a)(10). As Plaintiffs note,

19

the exculpatory provisions limit the Board’s liability to “intentional misconduct, knowing

20

violations of the law, [and/or] bad faith actions.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 22 (quoting Gordon v.

21

Bindra, Case No. 2:14-cv-1058-ODW (ASx), 2014 WL 2533798, *5 (C.D. Cal. June 5,

22

2014)).7 Plaintiffs must plead a “nonexculpated claim against the directors based on

23

particularized facts.” Gordon, 2014 WL 2533798, *5.

24
25
26
27

6

In Reply, Defendants do not specifically address the issue, but state this standard in
arguing the deficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations.
7
Although the Court notes the applicability of the exculpatory provision, the allegations
of the Consolidated Complaint would be insufficient without it.
8
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

II.

Ex Parte Communications

2

Plaintiffs argue that eight directors8 “face[d] a substantial likelihood of liability

3

because they consciously permitted Edison, via an ex parte conspiracy and a $2[0] million

4

kickback to influence the outcome of the SONGS OII.” (Pls.’ Opp’n. 14.) There are no

5

allegations from which the Court can infer these eight directors knew about the unreported

6

reportable ex parte communications or knew that there was anything improper about the

7

$20 million research funding the CPUC requested that the parties to the settlement include

8

and approve.

9

Plaintiffs rely heavily on Rosenbloom,9 a case in which the complaint alleged that a

10

drug company’s “Board either knew or, due to a series of red flags, should have known,

11

about” the company’s illegal off-label marketing and promotion of a drug. 765 F.3d at

12

1151. In this case, the alleged comparable conduct to the illegal off-labeling pursuits are

13

the unreported reportable ex parte communications with the CPUC concerning SONGS

14

and approval of the GHG Initiative. In Rosenbloom, the plaintiffs alleged more than ten

15

years of the Board actively developing multiple strategic plans to maximize sales of a drug

16

for off-label use, closely monitoring those sales, and even acquiring another company to

17

increase those sales. Id. at 1151-52. The complaint contained very detailed factual

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court need not address the allegations specific to Craver because Plaintiffs’ have
not sufficiently alleged demand futility as to the other directors as would be necessary for
demand to be futile as to a majority of the Board. Additionally, the Court finds that
Taylor’s alleged association with UCLA does not appear to be distinguishable from “[a]
director’s association with a company that does business with the corporation [that] does
not in and of itself establish a lack of independence.” Katz v. Chevron Corp., 22 Cal.
App. 4th 1352, 1368 (1st Dist. 1994).
9
Because Plaintiffs’ briefing relies heavily on Rosenbloom and advocates the application
of the consolidated test outlined in it, the Court considers the sufficiency of the
allegations of the Consolidated Complaint in light of that decision and its guidance on
evaluating demand futility. However, the Court notes that it is not finding that the
“battery of particularized factual allegations” in that case are the minimum necessary to
plead demand futility. Rosenbloom, 765 F.3d at 1152.
8

9
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

allegations from which the court could infer that the Board knew about illegal activities.

2

Id. at 1152. There were allegations the Board was shown a slide show for a program to

3

market and promote the drug for a specific off-label use that the Board knew clinical trials

4

did not support and for which “FDA approval was nowhere in sight;” allegations the Board

5

reviewed promotional documents for a program to help physicians obtain reimbursements

6

for off-label uses; and allegations the Board received a report on a program to persuade

7

doctors to prescribe the drug for an off-label purpose while reporting it with an on-label

8

diagnosis. Id. And, critically different from the allegations here, there were allegations

9

“the Board received repeated FDA warnings, [letters annually for five years], about illegal

10

promotion,” including one that “specifically addressed off-label promotion,” and

11

allegations an employee filed an ethics complaint about off-label promotion and then

12

resigned. Id. at 1153-54. Despite knowledge of the conduct and warnings from the FDA,

13

the Board did not nothing. Id. at 1159. The allegations here are drastically different.

14

Here, the Consolidated Complaint does not allege facts from which the Court could

15

infer a majority of the Board10 approved of any conspiracy to engage in unreported

16

reportable ex parte communications because there are no allegations from which the Court

17

can infer these eight directors even knew about the unreported reportable ex parte

18

communications.11 In Rosenbloom, there were a series of red flags over years that should

19

have alerted the Board to illegal activities. The allegations Plaintiffs emphasize as red flags

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court’s references to “the Board” here are intended to encompass the eight
directors other than Craver. As previously noted, the Court need not address the
sufficiency of the allegations as to Craver because Plaintiffs have not met the pleading
requirements as to the other eight directors.
11
In summarizing the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiffs assert, without
citation to the Complaint or any facts in support that Board members “knowingly
permitted the Company to embark on a secret campaign to improperly manipulate the
SONGS settlement through backdoor communications with CPUC leaders.” (Pls.’ Opp’n
5.) As discussed more fully below, there are no allegations that support this conclusion.
10

10
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

that should have alerted the eight directors to the unreported reportable ex parte

2

communications are not red flags because they either do not alert the eight directors to any

3

actual wrongdoing or lack any factual support that any of the eight directors were aware of

4

them.

5

The June 6, 2013 email from Craver to four other directors — that Plaintiffs describe

6

as improper and argue was a sign that Edison’s compliance with the CPUC rules was

7

inadequate — was not even a reportable ex parte communication. Both the ALJ and the

8

CPUC decisions found it was not reportable because Craver was only calling to notify

9

Peevey that Edison had decided to permanently shut down SONGS.12

10

The September 25, 2014 email to Company employees reminding them of the ex

11

parte rules and referencing “a situation” that “makes clear that awareness is not enough”

12

also lacks any allegations suggesting the Board members were aware of it. (CDC ¶ 44.)

13

Even assuming the Board would have interpreted it as a sign of an internal problem rather

14

than as a reference to problems at PG&E, there are no allegations the Board received or

15

even knew about this email.

16

Unlike Rosenbloom, there are no allegations of a series of FDA letters and

17

complaints from physicians and employees about wrongdoing. Plaintiffs attempt to

18

characterize this as a widespread scheme of wrongdoing that should have been obvious

19

because resolution of the SONGS OII was of critical importance. And while Plaintiffs

20

have alleged that the resolution of the SONGS OII was very important, there are no red

21

flags allege, let alone a series of them, that could have drawn the Board’s attention to the

22

unreported reportable ex parte communications. The Court cannot infer that a majority of

23

the Board knew about or should have known about the violations and did nothing, as

24
25
26
27

12

The Court is not endorsing such communications, but Plaintiffs cannot simply describe
the calls as improper without any indication why, particularly in the face of a CPUC
decision finding they were not, and then expect the Court to find it was a warning to the
Board that its compliance was inadequate or something improper was happening.
11
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

required to create a reasonable doubt that the Board faced a substantial likelihood of

2

liability.

3

III.

GHG Initiative

4

Plaintiffs also argue that demand is excused as to the entire Board because the Board

5

approved the $20 million GHG Initiative, but there are no facts from which the Court can

6

infer the eight directors other than Craver knew or had reason to know the GHG was

7

anything but a settlement modification requested by the CPUC. The parties’ initial

8

settlement was submitted to the CPUC for approval. The CPUC then issued a request that

9

the parties approve a modification to the settlement adding the GHG Initiative. All parties,

10

including Edison, by a vote of its Board, approved it. There are allegations in the

11

Consolidated Complaint that Peevey sought this funding, but there are no allegations that

12

these eight directors knew that or should have deduced as much.

13

In summarizing the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint in their Opposition,

14

Plaintiffs assert, without citation, that the Board knew the GHG Initiative was a kickback

15

to Peevey to obtain a favorable resolution of the OII. (Pls.’ Opp’n 3-4.) Similarly, in

16

arguing the Board knew “that the payment was a kickback,” Plaintiffs cite numerous

17

paragraphs of the Consolidated Complaint, (Pls.’ Opp’n 18 n.10), but none of those

18

allegations convey how any Board member other than Craver would have known there was

19

anything improper about this request from the CPUC. The allegations that the eight

20

directors knew it was a kickback are conclusory and have no support in the allegations of

21

the Consolidated Complaint. Even taking into account Plaintiffs’ new allegations raised

22

for the first time in their Opposition — that Litzinger was being pressured by Peevey on

23

the GHG Initiative, that Peevey indicated he was going over him to Craver, and that Peevey

24

did go to Craver — those facts only support the inference that Craver knew that Peevey

25

wanted the GHG Initiative in the settlement. Assuming this constituted knowledge the

26

GHG Initiative was a kickback to Peevey for his support of the settlement, there are still

27

no allegations to support that conclusory assertion as to the other eight directors. In
12
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

pleading demand futility, a plaintiff must allege “facts specific to each director from which

2

it can conclude that that particular director could or could not be expected to fairly evaluate

3

the claims of the shareholder plaintiff.” Potter, 546 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Shields v.

4

Singleton, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1622 (2nd Dist. 1993)).

5

Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to create a reasonable doubt that a majority of the Board

6

faced a substantial likelihood of liability. There are no allegations from which the Court

7

can infer a majority of the Board knew or should have known about the unreported

8

reportable ex parte communications or about Peevey’s pursuit of inclusion of the GHG

9

Initiative. See Rosenbloom, 765 F.3d at 1159 (finding plaintiffs allegations showed “that

10

either the Board did nothing despite actual or constructive knowledge of wrongdoing . . .

11

or knowingly adopted a business plan premised on illegal conduct).

12

IV.

Audit Committee

13

Plaintiffs argue that the members of the Board that served on the Audit Committee

14

either knew about the unreported reportable ex parte communications in their role as Audit

15

Committee members or breached their fiduciary duties by failing to respond appropriately

16

to red flags. The critical difference in this case, from those Plaintiffs rely on, is red flags.

17

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not alleged “that an audit committee . . . had notice of

18

serious misconduct and simply failed to investigate,” Rosenbloom, 765 F.3d at 1154, or

19

that “beyond the directors’ membership in the Audit Committee, they knew of the”

20

unreported reportable ex parte communications or Peevey’s pursuit of the GHG Initiative.

21

In re Intuitive Surgical S’holder Derivative Litig., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1121 (N.D. Cal.

22

November 16, 2015) (emphasis added).

23

Plaintiffs additionally argue that the Audit Committee members failed to ensure

24

appropriate internal controls were in place. Defendants accurately note this is a Caremark

25

claim which requires a plaintiff plead “(a) the directors utterly failed to implement any

26

reporting or information systems or controls; or (b) having implemented such a system or

27

controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves
13
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)

1

from being informed of risks or problems requiring attention.” Stone ex rel. AmSouth

2

Bancorporation v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (2006) (referencing In re Caremark Int’l Inc.

3

Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)). There are no allegations that there were

4

no reporting or information systems or controls. And, as discussed above, there are no

5

allegations that constitute the sort of disregarded red flags from which the Court could infer

6

the Audit Committee failed to monitor or oversee operations.

7

CONCLUSION

8

Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an

9

amended complaint. If Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, it must be filed within

10
11
12

21 days of the filing of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 14, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
14
15CV1581 BEN (KSC)