Legal Opinion
In re Nutanix, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 5, 2020No. 3:19-cv-03817Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARAVIND BHONAGIRI, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03817-WHO 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO 9 v. DISMISS 10 DHEERAJ PANDEY, et al., Dkt. Nos. 51, 52 Defendants. 11 12 Defendant Nutanix Inc. (“Nutanix”) and the individual defendants in this action 13 (“Individual Defendants”) separately move to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brought 14 by Plaintiffs Aravind Bhonagiri, Ashwin Juneja, and TJ Park (“Plaintiffs”). Nutanix asserts that 15 Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the FAC because they did not adequately plead…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- In Re Gilead Sciences Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Sterling Usher v. City of Los Angeles, Richard A. Gonzales, Michael E. Melton, Jose E. Ramirez, Joe Rios, and Robert L. VannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- In Re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2009
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.