History
  • No items yet
midpage
999 F. Supp. 164
D. Mass.
1998

ORDER

YOUNG, District Judge.

The first paragraph of the Complaint in this matter contains general and undifferentiated assertions that the allegations that follow are not only founded on “information and belief,” but are also based upon “investigation by plaintiffs’ counsel.” See Compl. ¶ intro. This is no longer an acceptable approach to pleading. As the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-67, § 101(b), 109 Stat. 737, 743-49, (Dec. 22, 1995) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4), makes clear beyond peradventure, “if an allegation regarding the [allegedly misleading] statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint must state with particularity all the facts on which that belief is based.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1). The Plaintiffs here fail utterly to comply with this enhanced pleading requirement.

Accordingly, within ten days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiffs shall specify, as to each particular allegation (i.e., every sentence or clause separated by a comma or conjunction), whether that allegation is made upon information and belief or is supported by some document or statement on personal knowledge by a potential witness. Sources need not be specified, but the Court needs to know which is which. As to statements made upon information and belief, the Court will assume that the factual averments set out “with particularity all the facts on which the belief is formed.” The response to this Order may be styled as a “Supplement” to the Complaint.

SO ORDERED.

Case Details

Case Name: Lirette v. Shiva Corporation
Court Name: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Date Published: Mar 26, 1998
Citations: 999 F. Supp. 164; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5178; 1998 WL 138886; CIV. A. 97-11159-WGY
Docket Number: CIV. A. 97-11159-WGY
Court Abbreviation: D. Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In
    Lirette v. Shiva Corporation, 999 F. Supp. 164