NEWSPRING MEZZANINE CAPITAL II, L.P. v. HAYES et al
Filing
80
ORDER THAT DEFENDANT UTILIPATH'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS I, II, III, IV AND V OF BASTER McLINDON HAYES, JR'S AND UTILIPATH'S AMENDED CROSS-CLAIM IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 11/12/14. 11/12/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NEWSPRING MEZZANINE
CAPITAL II, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAYES, JR. et al.,
Defendants.
This 12th
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-1706
ORDER
day of November, 2014, Defendant Utilipath, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I,
II, III, IV, and V of Baxter McLindon Hayes, Jr.’s and Utilipath Holdings, Inc.’s Amended
Cross-claim is DENIED for the reasons that follow:
1) With respect to Count I, taking the allegations of the Cross-claim Complaint
collectively, Claimaints have sufficiently pleaded a Rule 10b-5 claim. Tellabs v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. 551 U.S. 308, 323–24 (2007).
2) With respect to Count II, regardless of whether Pennsylvania or Delaware law
applies, which I am not deciding, the allegations suffice to plead fraudulent
inducement and reliance.
3) With respect to Count IV, although the adequacy of the Cross-claim is a closer issue
under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), it is sufficient to withstand dismissal.
4) With respect to Counts III and V, the basis for denial of the Motion, without
prejudice, is set forth in the accompanying Memorandum.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Court 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?