Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04913/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04913-2/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODY GLIDDEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SKILLSOFT PLC et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04913 CRB

ORDER

Now before the Court are defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and, in the

alternative, Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. As the Court stated in open

court at the hearing on October 28, 2005, the Court rules as follows:

1. The Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

2. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claims is DENIED. 

Defendants have not established that they did not intend for plaintiffs to rely on financial

statements which defendants provided directly to plaintiffs to induce them to sell. The cases

cited by defendants all involve open market purchasers, not persons who negotiated directly

with the persons making the false statements.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the “holding” claims is GRANTED with leave to

amend. Plaintiffs must provide more specifics, such as the number of shares they held, the

Case 3:04-cv-04913-CRB Document 74 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\4913\Order2redismiss.wpd 2

number sold, exactly when sold and why, and exactly when they would have sold. Plaintiffs

must also allege that they reviewed the material they claim they relied upon.

Defendants’ motion to strike the demand for “benefit of the bargain” damages is

GRANTED in part. The Court holds that California Civil Code section 3343 applies to this

case and it is not limited to real property transactions. To the extent this ruling may address

whether any exceptions to the application of section 3343 apply here, the Court makes no

determination. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04913-CRB Document 74 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2