Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05609/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05609-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONTINENTAL ADVISORS S.A., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GSV ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05609-YGR 

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL;

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND; AND (3) CONTINUING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 24

I. MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs Continental Advisors S.A. (“Continental Advisors”) and Precedo Capital Group 

LLC (“Precedo”) filed their complaint on December 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) While the complaint 

is not a model of clarity, it apparently alleges the defendants—GSV Asset Management (“GSV”) 

and two of its principals—fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to conduct “road shows” and 

otherwise seek out potential investors in Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) shares prior to the company’s 

initial public offering (“IPO”). According to the complaint, the defendants apparently never 

intended to consummate the transaction, but merely sought to “gauge investor interest, which 

would later serve as data for Twitter to seek a certain IPO price.” The complaint purports to assert 

six “causes of action”: (1) breach of contract / breach of the implied covenant of good faith and 

fair dealing; (2) fraud; (3) aiding and abetting fraud; (4) tortious interference with business 

relations; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) negligent misrepresentation. 

The defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). 

(Dkt. No. 24.)1 The plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Dkt. No. 29.)

 

1

The defendants also filed an unopposed request for judicial notice, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Evidence 201, of (1) certain filings in an earlier action the plaintiffs brought against 

Twitter in the Southern District of New York, which was subsequently dismissed with prejudice; 

and (2) the Mandate Agreement, dated August 20, 2012, between GSV and Continental Advisors, 

Case 4:14-cv-05609-YGR Document 32 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Having carefully considered the papers submitted,

2

the complaint, and the arguments of 

counsel, and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND for the reasons stated on the record at the April 28, 2015 hearing.

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the plaintiffs shall file a First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) addressing the deficiencies discussed at the hearing, including pleading 

allegations of fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The 

FAC must also (1) clearly identify as to each claim which plaintiff(s) assert(s) the claim against 

which defendant(s) and (2) otherwise satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 by providing “a short and 

plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

II. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Pursuant to the request of the parties at the April 28, 2015 hearing, the Court hereby 

CONTINUES the Case Management Conference currently set for June 22, 2015 to September 14, 

2015 at 2 p.m. Related deadlines shall be continued accordingly.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 22, 24, and 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

which is referenced in the complaint and serves as the basis for the plaintiffs’ breach of contract 

claim. The Court GRANTS the request. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.’”); Knievel v. ESPN, 

393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We have extended the ‘incorporation by reference’ doctrine 

to situations in which the plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant 

attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of 

the document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in 

the complaint.”).

2 Defendant GSV filed a motion to seal (1) Exhibits A and B to the Mark Flynn 

Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; and (2) portions of the defendants’

opening brief reflecting the contents of those exhibits. (Dkt. No. 22.) Exhibit A is a Mandate 

Letter between GSV and Continental Advisors and Exhibit B is the aforementioned Mandate 

Agreement between those parties. The plaintiffs, taking no position regarding the propriety of 

GSV’s request, filed a motion to seal portions of their reply brief including that same material. 

(Dkt. No. 28.) The Court GRANTS the motions to seal only for the purposes of resolving this 

particular motion to dismiss. 

Case 4:14-cv-05609-YGR Document 32 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2