Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01680/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01680-2/pdf.json

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

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VISWANATH V. SHANKAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERVA, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-01680-PJH 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

ALLEGE ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 

 On October 15, 2015, plaintiff in the above-captioned case filed an amended 

complaint in accordance with the court’s September 17, 2015 dismissal order, and also 

filed a “motion for leave to allege additional false and misleading statements and to 

modify the class period.” In the motion, plaintiff acknowledges that the court’s dismissal 

order stated that he “will not be permitted to add any new alleged false/misleading 

statements to any amended complaint without leave of court or the consent of all parties,” 

and having failed to obtain defendants’ consent to add additional false/misleading 

statements, he now seeks leave of court to do so. 

 However, though plaintiff’s motion appears to seek leave to amend the complaint, 

plaintiff has not complied with Civil Local Rule 10-1, which requires that “[a]ny party filing 

or moving to file an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and 

may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference.” In the alternative, 

plaintiff’s motion could be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 

dismissal order, but plaintiff has not complied with Civil Local Rule 7-9, which requires the 

party seeking reconsideration to state the basis for the motion. 

Case 4:14-cv-01680-PJH Document 57 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

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 

bu

co

Da

Plaintif

t must clea

mply with a

IT IS S

ated: Octob

ff’s motion i

rly state the

any applicab

SO ORDER

ber 19, 201

is thus DEN

e procedura

ble requirem

RED. 

5 

2

NIED withou

al basis und

ments. 

__

PH

Un

ut prejudice

der which t

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

e. Plaintiff 

the motion 

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

may re-file 

is brought, 

__________

udge 

his motion

and must 

_______ 

,

Case 4:14-cv-01680-PJH Document 57 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2