IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

ELECTRICAL FUND and GEORGE 

HAROUTUNIAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, 

WALDEN C. RHINES, GREGORY K. 

HINCKLEY, and JOSEPH REINHART, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Senior Judge. 

3:16-cv-00470-PK 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#112) on May 29, 2018, in which he recommends the 

Court grant the Motion (#92) to Dismiss filed by Defendants 

Mentor Graphics Corporation, Walden C. Rhines, Gregory K. 

Hinckley, and Joseph Rienhart; grant Defendants' Request (#94) 

for Judicial Notice and Supplemental Request (#103) for Notice of 

Incorporation by Reference; and dismiss with prejudice the First 

Amended Complaint (#87) filed by Plaintiffs Western Pennsylvania 

Electrical Fund and George Haroutunian. Plaintiffs filed timely 

1 - ORDER 
Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make 

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On August 23, 2017, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's 

prior Findings and Recommendation (#72), dismissed Plaintiffs' 

Amended Complaint (#47) without prejudice, and allowed Plaintiffs 

to replead. See Order (#84). 

On October 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended 

Complaint (#87) . 1 

On December 16, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion (#92) to 

Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and a Request (#94) for 

Judicial Notice. On February 18, 2018, Defendants filed a 

Supplemental Request (#103) for Notice of Incorporation by 

Reference. 

1 Although Plaintiff titled this pleading "First" Amended 

Complaint, it was actually the second time Plaintiffs had amended 

their Complaint. 

2 - ORDER 
As noted, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant 

Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, Supplemental Request for 

Notice of Incorporation by Reference, and Motion to Dismiss and 

dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice. 

On June 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Objections (#114) to the 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 

On June 26, 2018, Defendants filed a Response (#116) to 

Plaintiffs' Objections. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated federal securities 

laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements 

and concealing materially adverse facts regarding Mentor Graphics 

Corporation's then-current financial condition and growth 

prospects. 

Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended 

Complaint (#87) on the ground that Plaintiffs' amended 

allegations fail to state a claim for violation of Section lO(b) 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. 

§ 78j (b); Rule lOb-5, codified at 17 C.F.R. § 240.lOb-5; and 

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). 

As noted, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 

with prejudice on the ground that Plaintiffs' claims were 

3 - ORDER 
previously dismissed for the same reasons that apply here and 

Plaintiffs failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the 

Court's Order (#72) issued June 2, 2017. The Magistrate Judge 

also recommends the Court grant Defendants' Request for Judicial 

Notice and Supplemental Request for Notice of Incorporation by 

Reference on the ground that the documents were expressly 

referenced in the prior Complaints, were excerpts from the same 

transcript of trial testimony previously noticed, or were 

adjudicative facts. 

In their Objections Plaintiffs primarily reiterate the 

arguments made in their Response to Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss, Request for Judicial Notice, and Supplemental Request 

for Notice of Incorporation by Reference. 

This Court has fully considered Plaintiffs' Objections and 

concludes they do not provide any basis to modify the Findings 

and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent 

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the 

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and 

Recommendation (#112), GRANTS Defendants' Request (#94) for 

Judicial Notice, GRANTS Defendants' Supplemental Request (#103) 

for Notice of Incorporation by Reference, and GRANTS Defendants' 

4 - ORDER 
Motion (#92) to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

(Ir._ 

DATED this ;). 7 day of July, 2018. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States Senior District Judge 

5 - ORDER