Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge. This 12th 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).
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge. This 12th 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..
More
ORDER
GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge.
This 12th 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.
