Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, C.D. California, Southern Division

January 5, 2015

In re QUALITY SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

For Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff: Blair A Nicholas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA.

For City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movants: Avi Josefson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, NY; Blair A Nicholas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher Dennis Stewart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Gerald H Silk, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, New York, NY; Stephen H Cypen, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Cypen and Cypen, Miami Beach, FL; Benjamin Galdston, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA; Brandon Marsh, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, San Diego, CA; Brian Oliver O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Lucas E Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA; Robert Russell Henssler, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA.

For Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T Plochocki, Paul A Holt, Sheldon Razin, Defendants: Peter Allen Wald, LEAD ATTORNEY, Andrew Gray, Michele D Johnson, Latham and Watkins LLP.

For Fredric Firehammer, Interested Party: Jeff S Westerman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Westerman Law Corp, Los Angeles, CA; Jordanna G Thigpen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, West Hollywood, CA.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust brought this securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who, during May 26, 2011 through July 25, 2012 (the " Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Defendant Quality Systems, Inc. (" QSI"), (collectively, " Plaintiffs"). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that QSI and its high-ranking directors and officers, Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, and Paul Holt (collectively, " Defendants") made false and misleadin statements regarding revenue forecasts, sales pipeline figures, and greenfield sales projections. (Dkt. No. 26, Amended Compl. [" AC" ].)

On June 20, 2014, Defendants brought a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that the alleged statements were forward-looking and protected by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (" PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b). (Dkt. No. 29 [" Defs.' MTD" ].) Specifically, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had failed to show that Defendants made the alleged forward-looking statements with knowledge of their falsity and that the statements were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. (Id.) In support of the latter proposition, Defendants requested judicial notice of numerous exhibits pursuant to the incorporation by reference doctrine and Federal Rule of Evidence 201. (Dkt. Nos. 29-2, 35-1.)

The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on October 20, 2014 based on the finding that the vast majority of the alleged statements were forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language (" Order"). (Dkt. No. 39 [Order] at 8-10.)[1] Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs had failed to allege that Defendants made the statements with knowledge of their falsity. (Order at 10-12.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Order, or, in the alternative, a motion to amend. (Dkt. No. 40 [" Pls.' Mot." ] at 3.) For the reasons provided below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or, in the alternative, request leave to amend under Rule 15. Where, as here, final judgment has been entered, " a motion to amend the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60." Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court thus denies Plaintiffs' motion in the alternative and will only consider the Rule 59 motion for reconsideration.

The standard for obtaining reconsideration of a previously entered order is rigorous. The Ninth Circuit has held that reconsideration is appropriate " if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In this district, Local Rule 7-18 provides that " a motion for reconsideration may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision." Local Rule 7-18. " No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." Id.; see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs request reconsideration on the ground that the Court committed clear error when it dismissed the Complaint with prejudice . Plaintiffs do not dispute the dismissal--only that the Court should have granted leave to amend. (Pls.' Mot. at 2.) To that end, Plaintiffs proffer a number of purportedly new facts that they would allege if given the opportunity to bring a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs further contend that the Court erred by taking judicial notice of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.