Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05421-9/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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/1/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION,

This Document Relates To:

 

 ALL ACTIONS.

No. C-03-05421 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 194, 195]

This securities class action suit was filed against defendant LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.

("LeapFrog") and eight of LeapFrog's officers or former officers. LeapFrog moves to dismiss the

plaintiff class's Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CAC") for failure to state a claim

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The individually-named officers of LeapFrog filed a separate

motion also seeking to dismiss the CAC for failure to state a claim. LeapFrog and the individual

defendants join in each other's motion. Plaintiffs oppose the motions. Plaintiffs also seek leave to

amend in the event defendants' motions are granted. On July 21, 2006 the court heard oral argument

by counsel. 

The court expressed concern that the manner in which the 147-page consolidated amended

complaint is arranged makes it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the pleadings and determine

whether the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") are

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 7
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

1

 Specifically, two of the subparagraphs appear to be statements regarding the PowerTouch. 

In one subparagraph LeapFrog discloses the markets in which it competes, notes that such markets

are very competitive and that LeapFrog expects competition to increase in the future, discloses an

example of such competition to be the PowerTouch introduced in July 2003 and "having

functionality similar to that of our LeapPad platform," disclosing that many competitors and

potential competitors have longer operating history, brand name recognition, greater financial,

technical, and marketing resources, and that LeapFrog "cannot assure you that we will be able to

compete effectively in our markets." The complaint alleges that defendants "merely represented that

sales and market share 'could' decline if LeapFrog was unable to compete effectively." One other

paragraph discloses LeapFrog's reliance on its sales of the LeapPad platform, stating that if LeapPad

sales are below expected sales or do not grow as anticipated and sales of other products do not

compensate for such shortfall, "our overall sales would suffer." With respect to this disclosure, the

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 2

met. At oral argument plaintiffs' counsel conceded that plaintiffs' securities fraud action is premised

on essentially two grounds: (1) alleged misstatements or omissions concerning competition from the

Mattel PowerTouch and (2) alleged misstatements or omissions concerning supply-chain and

distribution problems. Accordingly, the court inquired as to these two grounds: What specific

misrepresentation or omission was made and when; what facts existed at the time of a particular

statement that support the falsity of the statement; what facts are pled that show that at the time any

such misrepresentation or omission was made that the defendants knew that the misrepresentation or

omission was false?

A. Misstatements or Omissions

Plaintiffs maintained at oral argument that the pleadings in the complaint addressed with

particularity the requirements of the PSLRA, citing to paragraphs in its amended consolidated class

action complaint. With respect to the alleged misstatements or omissions regarding the

PowerTouch, plaintiffs pointed the court to paragraphs 214, 232, 250, 256, 263, 217, 225, 226, 244,

253, and 262. With respect to alleged misstatements or omissions regarding supply-chain and

distribution, plaintiffs pointed the court to these same paragraphs as the complaint does not

segregate allegations based on the subject matter of the purported fraudulent statements.

For example, plaintiffs allege in paragraph 214 that the 10-Q "included false and misleading

statements portraying actual problems which Defendants knew were occurring as mere 'risk factors'

that 'could' occur." However, rather than specifically alleging what statement or statements are

alleged to be false, paragraph 214 sets forth three pages mostly of excerpted text from LeapFrog's

form 10-Q for its second quarter of 2003.1

 Even assuming every statement in paragraph 214 is

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 7
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

complaint alleges that defendants "merely represented that sales of LeapPad platforms, the product

that Mattel's PowerTouch competed with, 'may' be of particular importance to LeapFrog's financial

results 'if' such LeapPad sales failed to grow as expected." (emphasis in original).

2

 These excerpts are all from defendants' disclosures of "Risk Factors" in its quarterly and

annual filing with the SEC and therefore constitute defendants' cautionary language. Plaintiffs

appear to assert that the cautionary language do not accurately state the particular risk. To the extent

plaintiffs are alleging the risk factors fail to provide adequately meaningful language, plaintiffs'

allegations fail to identify which forward-looking statements are not protected by the PSLRA's safe

harbor as a result. To the extent plaintiffs are alleging that the risk factors themselves are

affirmative misstatements, plaintiffs' allegations fail. In particular, plaintiffs have not shown how

their allegations support that the risk factors themselves are false. See Zeid v. Kimberley, 930 F.

Supp. 431, 437 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ("Defendants' warnings regarding potential adverse factors are not

actionable as a matter of law" where plaintiffs were asserting that defendants should have stated that

certain adverse factors "are" affecting rather than "may" affect the financial statements.); Plevy v.

Haggerty, 38 F. Supp. 2d 816, 832 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (plaintiffs could not state a claim that detailed

and specific risk factors were "masked as mere contingencies").

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 3

alleged to be false, there are no factual allegations that show that: (1) any of those particular

statements were false when disclosed on August 11, 2003 and (2) that defendants knew on August

11, 2003 that those statements were false.2

 Likewise, the other paragraphs cited to by plaintiffs do

not plead factual allegations showing that particular statements were false when disclosed and that

defendants knew the particular statement was false when disclosed.

B. Falsity and Knowledge of Falsity When Statement was Made

At oral argument plaintiffs offered that the pleadings showing the alleged statements were

false when made and that defendants knew of the falsity at the time of disclosure are set forth in

paragraphs 108 through 174 and in paragraphs 94 through 106. In relooking at each of these

paragraphs, the court finds no statements linking any alleged falsity or knowledge of falsity as to any

specific statements. For example, the allegations in the almost seventy paragraphs (from 108

through 174) spanning twenty pages purporting to show knowledge of falsity are largely conclusory,

vague, made without reference to time, or provide no indication of falsity or knowledge of falsity. 

For example, plaintiffs allege: "Defendants also knew the shipping problems and the impact of

Mattel's PowerTouch on the Company's sales and lack of supply-chain software precluded LeapFrog

from accurately forecasting and fulfilling customer orders"; "Other witnesses confirmed that DSS

was unable to ship product to the Company's retail customers"; "CW-6 stated that LeapFrog

management was unhappy with the degree of oversight required and wanted a warehouse provider

that did not require the same level of oversight"; "CW-8 also stated DSS management knew

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 7
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

3

 However, elsewhere in the complaint plaintiffs allege that defendants missed its third quarter

2003 forecasts because it was unable to ship a $12-$13 million Toys 'R Us order for the third

quarter.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 4

LeapFrog had decided to replace DSS with CLI by 11/03"; during the patent infringement trial,

Bender "admitted that LeapFrog lost $1.2 million in LeapPad orders from Target and $2.8 million

LeapPad orders from Toys 'R Us in 3Q03 because of the inability to ship the product"; "CW-1 and

CW-2 stated that LeapFrog cancelled the implementation of the Manugistics software prior to

3Q03"; and because the new software was not implemented, "LeapFrog used manually prepared

spreadsheets to support its operations." Plaintiffs also allege that defendants knew in advance of the

shortfall for the third quarter of 2003 because Curley attempted unsuccessfully to fabricate sales in

the third quarter of 2003 to make up the shortfall by shipping product that Toys 'R Us scheduled to

be shipped in the fourth quarter of 2003.3 

For the most part paragraphs 108 through 174 variously describes operational problems

encountered by LeapFrog. For example, plaintiffs make numerous allegations that the delay of the

transition to the new supply-chain system and warehouse resulted in the transition occurring during

the peak selling season. Similarly, paragraphs 118 through 122 describe shipping problems at the

third-party logistics supplier. To the extent these allegations are the basis of falsity of any particular

statement, the pleadings do not make clear which specific statements are rendered false by which

specific factual allegations. These pleadings are unclear with respect to defendants' knowledge of

falsity as to any particular statement, let alone give rise to a strong inference of scienter under the

PSLRA. In paragraph 150 plaintiffs allege that "[a]fter the Class Period, [d]efendants admitted they

knew the delay in changing warehouse providers, consolidating warehouses, and implementing

supply-chain and warehouse management software would harm the Company's financial results." 

Defendants stated on October 18, 2004 (the last day of the Class Period) "we have experienced

several challenges getting our new distribution center up and running smoothly. . . . [G]etting all this

up and running during this peak time has been challenging and we have experienced negative

financial ramifications through this transition, ultimately impacting margin." These statements do

not give rise of an inference of scienter as to any prior statements, and the pleadings do not indicate

which prior statements, if any, are demonstrated to be false when made by the purported

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 7
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

4

 At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel suggested that taking the various cited paragraphs one

could "then juxtapose the dates with the statements which will show the knowledge at the particular

time." However, the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA cannot be met by alleging

numerous statements and facts and leaving it to the court or defendants to identify which ones are

misleading when made and on what basis.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 5

"admission" on October 18, 2004.

Paragraphs 65 through 82, which plaintiffs point to as undermining particular statements

alleged as false or misleading, simply sets forth twelve confidential witnesses and certain statements

purportedly attributed to those witnesses. However, the pleadings do not link the confidential

witnesses' statements to any particular statement alleged to be false or misleading to corroborate the

allegations of falsity.4

C. Leave to Amend

Finally, at oral argument plaintiffs agreed that "there's no question" that the complaint need

not take 147 pages. While plaintiffs supported the length of their complaint with concerns about

showing sufficient details to meet the PLSRA's heightened pleading standards, a heightened

pleading standard need not translate to a lengthy complaint. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting in another context requiring heightened pleading that "[a] heightened

pleading standard is not an invitation to disregard's Rule 8's requirement of simplicity, directness,

and clarity" and observing that the court has "affirmed dismissal with prejudice for failure to obey a

court order to file a short and plain statement of the claim as required by Rule 8, even where the

heightened standard of pleading under Rule 9 applied"). 

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 5 of 7
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 6

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to

amend as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint is limited to the two grounds of alleged

securities fraud represented at oral argument: (i) competition from the PowerTouch

and (ii) the supply-chain and distribution problems, absent another ground, if any,

being set forth clearly;

2. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint should address the concerns raised by the

court in this order and not exceed fifty (50) pages in length; and

3. Plaintiffs have twenty (20) days to amend their complaint.

DATED: 7/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 6 of 7
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS—No. C-03-05421 RMW

SPT 7

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Michael M. Goldberg info@glancylaw.com

Laurence D. King lking@kaplanfox.com

Linda M. Fong lfong@kaplanfox.com

Patrick J. Coughlin patc@mwbhl.com

Darren J. Robbins drobbins@mwbhl.com

William S. Lerach billl@mwbhl.com

Kimberly C. Epstein kimcor@mwbhl.com

Luke O. Brooks lukeb@mwbhl.com

Christopher Paul Seefer chriss@lerachlaw.com

David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. drosenfeld@geller-rudman.com

Nicole Lavallee nlavallee@bermanesq.com

Marc S. Henzel mhenzel182@aol.com

Christopher T. Heffelfinger cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com

Julie Juhyun Bai jbai@bermanesq.com

Solomon B. Cera scera@gbcslaw.com 

Gwendolyn R. Giblin ggiblin@gbcslaw.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Leo Patrick Cunningham lcunningham@wsgr.com

Daniel W. Turbow dturbow@wsgr.com

Kassra Powell Nassiri knassiri@wsgr.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/1/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 223 Filed 08/01/06 Page 7 of 7