UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
February 25, 2010
WPP LUXEMBOURG GAMMA THREE SARL, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF SPOT RUNNER, INC., PLAINTIFF,
SPOT RUNNER, INC., NICK GROUF, DAVID WAXMAN, DANNY RIMER, ROGER LEE, ROBERT PITTMAN, PETER HUIE, BATTERY VENTURES VI, L.P., BATTERY INVESTMENT PARTNERS VI, LLC, BATTERY VENTURES VII, LP, BATTERY INVESTMENT PARTNERS VII, LLC, INDEX VENTURES III (JERSEY) L.P., INDEX VENTURES III (DELAWARE) L.P., INDEX VENTURES III, PARALLEL ENTREPRENEUR FUND (JERSEY) L.P., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dolly M. Gee United States District Judge
ORDER FOR DISMISSALWITHOUT PREJUDICE
On January 27, 2010, Hon. Percy Anderson issued an order in this case which stated in part as follows:
Plaintiff's claims under the Securities and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are dismissed. Plaintiff's claims for material omissions in violation of Rule 10b-5(b) by Lee, Rimer, Pittman, Battery, Index, the Company, and Huie are dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff's claims for material omissions in violation of Rule 10b-5(b) by Grouf and Waxman are dismissed with leave to amend. All claims for scheme liability pursuant to Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) are also dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff's claim against the Company under Section 10(b) for insider trading is dismissed with leave to amend, and its claim against Grouf for control person liability under Section 20(a) is stricken without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint, if any, no later than February 24, 2010. Failure to file an amended complaint by this date may result in dismissal without prejudice.
Doc. # 73 (emphasis added).
On January 27, 2010, this action was transferred to the calendar of the undersigned.
On February 12, 2010, plaintiff filed its notice of intent not to file an amended complaint indicating its intent to stand upon the existing pleading and appeal the Court's January 27, 2010 rulings. Plaintiff requested a dismissal without prejudice. Doc. # 75. On February 17, 2010, defendants filed their responses requesting dismissal with prejudice. Doc. ## 76 and 77. On February 22, 2010, plaintiff filed its reply. Doc. # 78. Having considered the record herein, the Court has determined that dismissal without prejudice is warranted.
IT IS ORDERED that judgment of dismissal without prejudice shall issue forthwith.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.