BARON et al v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC. et al
| EVA BARON and HAROLD BARON |
| ANGIE'S LIST, INC., ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, CHARLES HUNDT, THAPAR MANU, ROBERT R. MILLARD and WILLIAM S. OESTERLE |
| 1:2013cv02032 |
| December 23, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
83
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim of securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the SEC. The Plaintiffs' allegations do not meet the heightened pleading re quirements of Rule 9(b) or the PSLRA. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Plaintiffs' allegations of control person liability under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For these reasons, the De fendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 75) is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs have one additional opportunity to amend their Complaint. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days of the date of this Order. If no amended complaint is filed, the Court will enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/18/2015. (BGT)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
