Perhaps it's a coincidence, and perhaps it’s a trend, but this is the third reported decision in the past month (the others are here and here) that is critical of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint drafting techniques. This time, it’s Judge Susan R. Bolton (D. Ariz.) entering the fray, commenting (in connection with her complete dismissal without prejudice of the White Electronic Designs securities class action) that “Plaintiffs are advised, if they choose to re-file their Complaint, to give considered thought to efficient pleading and meaningful analysis. For example, it is extremely difficult and time consuming for the Court to piece together the alleged misrepresentations and omissions with factual assertions located in other parts of the Complaint. It would save considerable effort if Plaintiffs could somehow group together the alleged misrepresentations and reasons why they are misleading so that the Court is not forced to continually jump around the document.”
Trend or just business as usual? Feel free to add a comment below with your view (as always, no registration required, and you can be anonymous if you like).
You can read In re White Electronic Designs, issued February 14, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6961.
Nugget: “If Plaintiffs had provided any of the specific information in the alleged analysis, their claim might survive a motion to dismiss. Presumably CI 3, who prepared the analysis, would be able to provide some details, yet Plaintiffs have not given the Court any information contained in the analysis.”