Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01243-8/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 OWW/SMS 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EMAIL

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 

On March 18, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel Douglas Applegate

emailed Courtroom Deputy Alice Timken requesting clarification of

certain items in the Memorandum Decision and Order filed on March

13, 2008 (Doc. 67).

Specifically, Mr. Applegate seeks clarification of the

portions of the FAC dismissed with leave to amend, contending

that the Memorandum Decision and Order does not specify any claim

or cause of action as dismissed with leave to amend. 

The Memorandum Decision and Order intended that Plaintiffs

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 68 Filed 03/19/08 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

file a Second Amended Complaint separately stating as two causes

of action Plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities

Act of 1933 and Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934. The Memorandum Decision and Order also intended that

claims dismissed with prejudice against the moving Defendants and

any claims dismissed with prejudice applicable to all Defendants

in this action be deleted and not reasserted in the Second

Amended Complaint.

Mr. Applegate also requests clarification of the rulings at

pages 88-89 with regard to the specificity challenges concerning

the pleading of fraud and intentional misrepresentation. The

Court intended that the discussion of the challenges to Rule 10b5 apply to these claims. 

Finally, Mr. Applegate requests clarification if a specific

portion of the Memorandum Decision and Order is missing on page

89. The misnumbering is simply a typographical error.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01243-JLT Document 68 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2