John Loos v. Immersion Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the complaint’s omission of two subsequent 19 disclosures confirming the market’s fears of fraud was “fatal to [plaintiff’s] ability to 20 plausibly allege loss causation
• stating that “[t]he announcement of an 19 investigation does not ‘reveal’ fraudulent practices to the market” because the market does not yet 20 know for certain “what the investigation will ultimately reveal”
• “[D]isappointing earnings . . . are merely indicative of 12 poor financial health; they do not tend to suggest that the company had engaged in fraudulent 13 accounting practices.”
• holding the same for an internal investigation
• affirming the dismissal with prejudice of an amended complaint because “Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies identified in his original complaint” and “essentially re-pled the same facts and legal theories”
• “The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint without leave to amend because Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies identified in his original complaint. We find no abuse of discretion in that decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).