Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01224/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01224-7/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 GERON CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. 3:14-cv-01224-CRB

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

The Court is in receipt of Defendants Geron Corporation, John Scarlett, Olivia Bloom, and

Stephen Kelsey’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. 80) of this Court’s

April 15, 2015 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (dkt. 75). In the instant motion, Defendants ask the

Court to reconsider its April 15, 2015 Order on the grounds that the Court failed to take into account

particular facts and cases. As stated at the hearing, the Court reviewed all arguments that the parties

filed in connection with Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint

(dkt. 54). See Mot. for Leave to File, Ex. B at 2. In granting in part and denying in part Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, the Court issued its ruling in open court and supplemented its explanation with

an April 15, 2015 Order summarizing its reasoning. The Court has now reviewed its preparation for,

and ruling in connection with, the Motion to Dismiss and confirmed that it did in fact consider all

points reiterated by Defendants in their Motion for Reconsideration, which are encompassed within

the Court’s oral and written rulings. There being no “manifest failure by the Court to consider

material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before the order,” see

//

Case 3:14-cv-01224-CRB Document 90 Filed 09/03/15 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

Civil L.R. 7-9(b), Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-01224-CRB Document 90 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2