Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01680/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01680-3/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-1680-PJH 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. 

The motion was prompted by the court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint (Dkt. 53), in which the court granted leave to amend, but only to “add new facts 

supporting [plaintiff’s] allegation that the already-identified statements were false or 

misleading.” Plaintiff was expressly precluded from adding “new statements that he 

alleges are false or misleading.” 

 After filing his second amended complaint, plaintiff sought leave to add additional 

false and misleading statements and to enlarge the class period. Specifically, plaintiff 

seeks to add three additional statements relating to defendants’ claim that Imperva beat 

IBM “four out of five times.” Plaintiff also seeks to extend the class period, which 

currently runs from May 2, 2013 to April 9, 2014, by two months, so that it starts on 

March 7, 2013. 

 Regarding the three additional statements, the court agrees with both parties that 

they are “virtual repeats” of the allegations already contained in the complaint. Indeed, 

the court’s dismissal order specifically mentions a statement that Imperva “beat IBM four 

Case 4:14-cv-01680-PJH Document 63 Filed 12/23/15 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 

ou

pla

pre

su

In 

alle

alr

is w

co

ad

aft

mo

pa

ma

alle

Ap

acc

oth

am

sec

pa

Da

t of five tim

aintiff seeks

esident and

pport the a

other words

egation tha

eady perm

whether to 

Becaus

mplaint, the

dition. How

er the com

otion for lea

rt. Plaintiff 

ay not add t

ege the sam

pril 9, 2014. 

Plaintif

cordance w

herwise res

mended com

cond amen

rties. 

IT IS S

ated: Dece

es,” which 

s to add. P

d CEO, Anth

rgument tha

s, the Bette

t the alread

itted by the

allow plaint

se the state

e court finds

wever, the e

plaint was o

ave to file a 

may add th

the stateme

me class pe

 

ff shall have

with this ord

spond to the

mplaint can

nded compla

SO ORDER

mber 23, 20

is substant

laintiff’s mo

hony Betten

at the “four

encourt stat

dy-identified

e court’s pre

tiff to add th

ements are

s that there

extension o

originally fil

third amen

he stateme

ent made o

eriod as alle

e until Janu

der. Defend

e complaint

not contain

aint, unless

RED. 

015 

2

tively indisti

otion also re

ncourt, but 

r out of five 

tements are

d statement

evious orde

he new “fou

 substantiv

e cannot be

of the class 

ed, would c

nded compl

nts made o

n March 7, 

eged in the

uary 13, 20

dants shall 

t. Other tha

 any allega

s plaintiff ob

__

PH

Un

inguishable

efers to stat

those state

times” stat

e “new facts

ts were fals

er. Thus, th

ur out of five

vely identica

e any prejud

period, sou

cause preju

aint is GRA

on May 21, 

2013. The

e previous c

016 to file a

have 21 da

an the two s

ations or cla

btains leave

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

e from the t

tements ma

ements are 

tements we

s supportin

se or mislea

he only que

e times” sta

al to those a

dice to defe

ught nearly

udice. Acco

ANTED in p

2013 and M

e third ame

complaints –

 third amen

ays thereaft

statements

aims that w

e of court o

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

hree statem

ade by Imp

 mentioned

ere false or 

ng [plaintiff’s

ading,” whic

stion before

atements. 

already ple

endants thro

y eighteen m

ordingly, pla

part and DE

March 5, 20

nded comp

– from May

nded compl

ter to answ

s above, the

ere not incl

or the conse

__________

udge 

ments that 

perva’s 

d only to 

misleading

s] 

ch were 

e the court 

d in the 

ough their 

months 

aintiff’s 

ENIED in 

014, but 

plaint must 

y 2, 2013 to

laint in 

wer or 

e third 

luded in the

ent of all 

_______ 

. 

o

e

Case 4:14-cv-01680-PJH Document 63 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 2