Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUAL LOPES, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

GEORGE VIEIRA, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1243 OWN/SMS

ORDER RE DEFENDANT GENSKEMULDER LLP'S FAXED REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION

On March 20, 2008, Vincent O'Hara, counsel for Defendant

Genske-Mulder LLP, faxed a letter to the Court requesting further

clarification of the "Order re Plaintiffs' Email Request for

Clarification" filed on March 18, 2008.

Specifically, Defendant asserts that the March 18, 2008

Order that "Plaintiffs [shall] file a Second Amended Complaint

separately stating as two causes of action Plaintiffs' claim

under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10b of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934" is inconsistent with the

Memorandum Decision and Order filed on March 13, 2008 at 40:9-14,

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 69 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 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

2

dismissing the Third Cause of Action against the moving

Defendants without leave to amend to the extent the Third Cause

of Action alleges a violation of Section 12(2) of the Securities

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(2).

There is no inconsistency. The dismissal of the Section

12(2) claim against Genske-Mulder and Downey Brand was based on

the conclusion that neither Defendant was a "seller" as required

by law. Because there are other defendants in this action, the

Memorandum Decision could not and did not address the "seller"

requirement with regard to those defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 69 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 2