Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bradley COOPER; Todd Labak, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THORATEC CORPORATION; Gerhard F. Burbach; Taylor C. Harris; David V. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17369
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 14, 2017—San Francisco, California
    Filed October 04, 2017
    Patrick M. Dahlstrom, Leigh M. Han-delman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Chicago, IL, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Esquire, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esquire, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Amanda Betsch, Colleen Carlton Smith, Latham & Watkins, LLP, San Diego, CA, Katherine Ann Rykken, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

“[A] statement is misleading if it would give a reasonable investor the impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually exists.” In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), During the class period, Thoratec received data on Heart-Mate II thrombosis events that strongly suggested thrombosis rates were significantly higher than initially advertised. The company’s affirmative statements during the class period downplayed this increase. Appellants have accordingly alleged, with sufficient specificity to survive appellees’ motion to dismiss, that Thoratec’s statements were misleading.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.