Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04913/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04913-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODY GLIDDEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SKILLSOFT PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04913 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims of the

Second Amended Complaint and to strike the demand for “benefit of the bargain damages.” 

The Court rules as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of Trish Glidden is GRANTED with

prejudice as it is unopposed. 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the “induce to hold” claims is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs’ allegations satisfy Small v. Fritz for pleading purposes, and the Court is not

persuaded that the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and Second Amended

Complaint are so inconsistent that the Court should not consider the latter allegations.

3. Defendants’ motion to strike the demand for “benefit of the bargain” damages

based on a fiduciary relationship is GRANTED as to defendant SkillSoft. It is also

GRANTED as to the individual defendants to the extent plaintiffs seek such damages for any 

Case 3:04-cv-04913-CRB Document 90 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\4913\order3redismiss.wpd 2

conduct that occurred before plaintiffs became shareholders. It is denied in all other respects. 

As the individual defendants owed a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, the Court cannot

conclude as a matter of law that defendants did not owe plaintiffs a fiduciary duty after

plaintiffs became shareholders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04913-CRB Document 90 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2