High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
S
POT
R
UNNER
’
S
M
EMO OF
P’
S
&
A’
S
ISO
M
OT
.
TO
D
ISMISS
V
ERIFIED
C
OMPLAINT
C
ASE
N
O
.:
CV09-02487
PA
(PLA
X
)
3693741_4.DOC
BORIS FELDMAN (State Bar No. 128838) boris.feldman@wsgr.comDOUGLAS J. CLARK (State Bar No. 171499)dclark@wsgr.comKELLEY M. KINNEY (State Bar No. 216823)kkinney@wsgr.comL. DAVID NEFOUSE (State Bar No. 243417)dnefouse@wsgr.comWILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone: (650) 493-9300Facsimile: (650) 565-5100Attorneys for DefendantSPOT RUNNER, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWPP LUXEMBOURG GAMMATHREE SARL, on its behalf andderivatively on behalf of SPOTRUNNER INC.,Plaintiff,v.SPOT RUNNER INC., NICK GROUF,DAVID WAXMAN, DANNY RIMER,ROGER LEE, ROBERT PITTMAN,PETER HUIE, BATTERYVENTURES VI, LP, BATTERYINVESTMENT PARTNERS VI, LLC,BATTERY VENTURES VII, L.P.,BATTERY INVESTMENTPARTNERS VII, LLC, INDEXVENTURES III (JERSEY) L.P.,INDEX VENTURES III(DELAWARE) L.P., INDEXVENTURES III PARALLELENTREPRENEUR FUND (JERSEY)L.P.Defendants.Case No.: CV 09 02487 PA (PLAx)
SPOT RUNNER, INC’SMEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF MOTION TODISMISS VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT FOR SECURITIESFRAUD, VIOLATIONS OFCALIFORNIA CORPORATIONSCODE, BREACH OFFIDUCIARY DUTY,CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, ANDBREACH OF CONTRACT
Date: September 14, 2009Time: 1:30p.m.Judge: Hon. Percy AndersonDept.: Courtroom 15
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
S
POT
R
UNNER
’
S
M
EMO OF
P’
S
&
A’
S
ISO
M
OT
.
TO
D
ISMISS
V
ERIFIED
C
OMPLAINT
C
ASE
N
O
.:
CV09-02487
PA
(PLA
X
)
-i-
3693741_4.DOC
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
WPP’S SECTION 10(B) AND RULE 10B-5 CLAIM SHOULD BEDISMISSED (COUNT ONE).......................................................................10
WPP FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OFCALIFORNIA CORPORATION CODE SECTIONS 25401 AND25501 (COUNT TWO).................................................................................13
WPP’S DERIVATIVE CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARYDUTY AGAINST SPOT RUNNER FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW(COUNT FIVE).............................................................................................16
WPP’S INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARYDUTY AGAINST SPOT RUNNER FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW(COUNT SIX)...............................................................................................17
WPP Is Precluded From Asserting An Individual Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Spot Runner.......................................18
In The Alternative, WPP’s Direct Claim For Breach of FiduciaryDuty Is A Derivative Claim And Fails As A Matter of Law..............19
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
S
POT
R
UNNER
’
S
M
EMO OF
P’
S
&
A’
S
ISO
M
OT
.
TO
D
ISMISS
V
ERIFIED
C
OMPLAINT
C
ASE
N
O
.:
CV09-02487
PA
(PLA
X
)
-ii-
3693741_4.DOC
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CASES
Agostino v. Hicks
, 845 A.2d 1110 (Del. Ch. 2004).....................................16, 20, 21
Alessi v. Beracha
, 849 A.2d 939 (Del. Ch. 2004).......................................18, 19, 20
Arnold v. Society for Savings Bancorp, Inc.
, 678 A.2d 533 (Del. 1996)..........18, 19
Aronson v. Lewis
, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984),
overruled on other grounds by Brehm v. Eisner
, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000)...............................17
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).......................................................8, 9, 13,15, 23
Batchelder v. Kawamoto
, 147 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1998)...........................................9
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d929 (2007)............................................................................................8, 9, 13,15, 23
Bokat v. Getty Oil Co.
, 262 A.2d 246 (Del. 1970),
overruled on other grounds by Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc
., 845A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004).......................................................................16, 17, 22
Branch v. Tunnell
, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994),
overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara
, 307 F.3d 1119(9th Cir. 2002).................................................................................................4
Communist Party v. 522 Valencia, Inc.
, 35 Cal. App. 4th 980, 41 Cal.Rptr. 2d 618 (1995).......................................................................................23
Crescent/Mach I Partners, L.P. v. Turner
, 846 A.2d 963 (Del. Ch.2000)..............................................................................................................23
Dieterich v. Harrer
, 857 A.2d 1017 (Del. Ch. 2004)..............................................20
Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo
, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161L.Ed.2d 577 (2005)...........................................................................11, 12, 13
Edgar v. MITE Corp.
, 457 U.S. 624, 102 S. Ct. 2629, 73 L.Ed.2d 269(1982)..............................................................................................................9
Feldman v. Cutaia
, 951 A.2d 727 (Del. 2008)........................................................20
First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba
,462 U.S. 611, 103 S. Ct. 2591, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983)....................................9
Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc.
, 611 A.2d 467 (Del. 1992)..........................................18, 19
In re Daou Systems, Inc.
, 411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)........................................10
Add a Comment