Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03009/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03009-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE SALESFORCE.COM 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 04-03009 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

August 26, 2005 at 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at 

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case 3:04-cv-03009-JSW Document 78 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The parties shall have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) How can Defendants be liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange

Act for failure to disclose an internal forecast when the actual results for the

relevant fiscal year demonstrate that investors were not, in fact, misled by the

company’s nondisclosure? How does the omission “affirmatively create an

impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that

actually exists”? See Brody v. Transitional Hospitals Corp., 280 F.3d 997, 1006

(9th Cir. 2002). 

(2) On what basis in the complaint do Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for insider

trading? Are plaintiffs alleging that the initial public offering was essentially the

corporation trading in its own stock with nondisclosed inside information? See 

Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1203-04 (1st Cir. 1996). Do

Defendants contend that there is no viable insider trading claim only on the basis

that Plaintiffs are not contemporaneous traders?

(3) Do the parties have anything further to add? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03009-JSW Document 78 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2