throbber
Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:2904
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Deputy Clerk:
`Rita Sanchez
`
`Court Reporter:
`Not Reported
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`None Present
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendant:
`None Present
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings (In Chambers):
`
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`[55]; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
`NOTICE [64]
`
`
`
`Before the Court are two motions:
`
`The first is Defendants Beyond Meat, Inc. (“Beyond Meat”), Ethan Brown, and
`Mark J. Nelson’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation
`of the Federal Securities Laws, (the “Motion”), filed on July 31, 2020. (Docket No.
`55). Lead Plaintiff Block Investments Corporation and named Plaintiffs Jie Ling Guo
`and Neeraj Tulsian filed an opposition on August 31, 2020. (Docket No. 59).
`Defendants filed a reply on September 15, 2020. (Docket No. 62).
`
`The second is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Request for
`Judicial Notice (the “MTS”), filed on September 24, 2020. (Docket No. 64).
`Defendants filed an opposition on September 28, 2020. (Docket No. 66).
`
`The Court has read and considered the papers filed in connection with the
`motions and held a telephonic hearing on October 6, 2020, pursuant to General Order
`20-09 arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`The Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. The FAC does not sufficiently
`allege the falsity of material statements or omissions.
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2905
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`
`On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff Larry Tran initiated this action with his complaint
`against Beyond Meat, Inc. (“Beyond Meat”), Ethan Brown, and Mark J. Nelson (the
`“Tran Action”). (Docket No. 1). Generally, the Tran Action concerns allegations
`arising from a lawsuit brought by a former supplier of Beyond Meat, Don Lee Farms in
`Los Angeles Superior Court, along with a lawsuit brought by one of Beyond Meat’s
`new manufacturing partners, ProPortion Foods, LLC (“ProPortion”), captioned Don
`Lee Farms v. Savage River, Inc., Case No. BC662838 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (“Don Lee
`Farms”). (Id.). Don Lee Farms included allegations that Beyond Meat had employed
`lax food safety practices, that Don Lee Farms found plastics, cardboard and a metal
`nozzle in ingredients that Beyond Meat supplied, and that a Beyond Meat truck had
`arrived at a Don Lee Farms processing facility with a load contaminated with an
`unidentified white powder. (Id.).
`
`
`Subsequent to the Tran Action, two related actions were filed against Beyond
`Meat concerning the same allegations, captioned Eric Weiner v. Ethan Brown et al.,
`CV 20-2524-MWF and Kimberly Brink et al. v. Ethan Brown et al., CV 20- 2574-
`MWF. On April 1, 2020, the Court consolidated the actions and ordered the various
`parties to “meet and confer regarding the potential need for the appointment of a lead
`plaintiff, along with lead counsel.” (Docket No. 32 at 3). The Court ordered that if the
`parties were unable to reach an agreement, “counsel must submit short (no more than
`five pages) applications for lead counsel and/or lead plaintiff.” (Id.).
`
`On May 18, 2020, the Court granted the Block Investments Motion, appointing
`Block Investments as Lead Plaintiff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP as Lead Counsel, and
`Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Liaison Counsel. (Docket No. 41). Plaintiffs filed
`the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 1, 2020. (Docket No. 54).
`
`The following facts are based on the FAC, which the Court assumes are true and
`
`construes any inferences arising from those facts in the light most favorable to
`Plaintiff. See, e.g., Schueneman v. Arena Pharm., Inc., 840 F.3d 698, 704 (9th Cir.
`2016) (restating generally-accepted principle that “[o]rdinarily, when we review a
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:2906
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we accept a
`plaintiff’s allegations as true ‘and construe them in the light most favorable’ to the
`plaintiff”) (quoting Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th
`Cir. 2009)).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`Plaintiffs assert a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all other
`persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Defendant
`Beyond Meat, Inc. (“Beyond Meat” or the “Company”), between May 2, 2019 and
`January 27, 2020 (the “Class Period”). (FAC ¶ 1).
`
`Beyond Meat is a food company that manufactures and sells plant-based meat
`products using protein from peas referred to as “extrudate.” (Id. ¶ 5). Beyond Meat
`does not perform all of the steps in the manufacturing process for its products. (Id.).
`Rather, the Company produces the extrudate and other pea protein-based raw
`ingredients and contracts with a co-manufacturer who processes the ingredients into
`finished products and packages them for distribution and sale by the Company. (Id.).
`
`Defendant Ethan Brown served as Beyond Meat’s Chief Executive Officer and
`President during the Class Period, and served on the Company’s Board of Directors.
`(Id. ¶ 38). Defendant Mark J. Nelson served as Beyond Meat’s Chief Financial
`Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary during the Class Period. (Id. ¶ 39).
`
`From the moment Beyond Meat went public in May 2019, Defendants
`materially misrepresented to investors that a pending lawsuit against the Company
`brought by its former co-manufacturer, Don Lee Farms (“DLF”), lacked validity, and
`that its risks from the lawsuit were not extraordinary. (Id. ¶ 3). This lawsuit was filed
`in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Don Lee Farms v. Savage
`River, Inc. d/b/a Beyond Meat, Case No. BC662838 (the “DLF Litigation”). (Id.).
`Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their risk of liability was a near
`certainty. Defendants’ fraudulent actions ensured that Beyond Meat’s May 2019
`Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) went off without a hitch, becoming the largest popping
`U.S. IPO in nearly two decades, and artificially inflated Beyond Meat’s stock price
`throughout the Class Period. (Id.).
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:2907
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`Unbeknownst to investors, however, years before the IPO, Defendants executed
`a scheme to get out of an exclusive supply agreement it had with DLF before the end
`of the contract term — a scheme that would ultimately form the basis of DLF’s legal
`claims against the Company. (Id. ¶ 4). In 2014, Beyond Meat and DLF entered into a
`contract whereby, DLF became Beyond Meat’s exclusive co-manufacturer. (Id. ¶ 6).
`In its role as exclusive co-manufacturer, DLF significantly contributed to Beyond
`Meat’s rise. (Id.). Prior to entering its relationship with DLF, Beyond Meat did not
`know how to mass-produce its product and had essentially been making the products
`by hand. (Id.). DLF was responsible for engineering the process to scale production of
`Beyond Meat’s plant-based meat products, allowing the Company to grow. (Id.).
`
`DLF also developed the “Batch Making Protocols” for producing several of the
`Company’s products, including the “Beyond Burger” — Beyond Meat’s most popular
`product. (Id. ¶ 7). DLF’s Batch Making Protocols detailed the method and process for
`mass-producing the Beyond Burger, including critical components like ingredient
`amounts, mixing times, and equipment layouts. (Id.). However, in late January 2016,
`prior to DLF completing development of the Beyond Burger, Beyond Meat’s
`relationship with DLF was deteriorating, in part, because DLF had lost confidence in
`Beyond Meat’s food safety protocols after discovering foreign objects in the raw
`materials provided by Beyond Meat on multiple occasions. (Id. ¶ 8).
`
`At that time, maintaining the Company’s relationship with DLF was critical, as
`DLF was still perfecting the Beyond Burger. (Id. ¶ 9). Accordingly, Beyond Meat
`conducted an independent food safety audit of the Company’s facility in an attempt to
`address DLF’s concerns. (Id.). Thereafter, Beyond Meat provided DLF with an
`independent safety audit report that identified no food safety concerns. (Id. ¶ 10).
`DLF has since alleged that Beyond Meat executives deleted significant portions of the
`safety audit report, concealing the consultant’s findings of contamination. (Id.).
`
`Satisfied by the purported clean audit, on April 11, 2016, DLF agreed to amend
`the exclusive supply agreement, extending the contract with Beyond Meat through
`April 11, 2019. (Id. ¶ 11). The amendment also more than doubled Beyond Meat’s
`minimum required purchases under the agreement to 4,000,000 pounds of product in
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:2908
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`the first year, escalating to 6,000,000 pounds in the third year. (Id.). One month later,
`in May 2016, Beyond Meat launched the Beyond Burger, which sold out almost
`immediately and became the Company’s flagship product. (Id. ¶ 12). Since its launch,
`the Beyond Burger has been the Company’s most successful product, accounting for
`approximately 60% of the Company’s revenue leading up to its IPO. (Id.).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`With the Beyond Burger launched and DLF’s Batch Making Protocol for its new
`core product in hand, Defendants no longer had to rely on DLF and began to shop for a
`less costly replacement co-manufacturer. (Id. ¶ 13). To that end, Defendants secretly
`arranged a test with CLW Foods, LLC (“CLW”) to potentially replace DLF as the
`Company’s co-manufacturer. The test was scheduled for February 3, 2017. (Id. ¶ 14).
`Before the test could take place, DLF was alerted to Defendants’ plans when a Beyond
`Meat employee accidently copied DLF on an email chain discussing CLW. (Id.).
`
`Defendant Brown attempted to address the accidental email by representing to
`DLF that the Company would pull the test at CLW in the hope that the two companies
`could put the matter behind them. (Id. ¶ 15). However, despite Brown’s assurances to
`the contrary, Beyond Meat continued to covertly negotiate with CLW. (Id.). Beyond
`Meat’s former Vice President of Operations and Supply Chain testified that by late
`March 2017, he had been negotiating with CLW for a while, including discussing
`price, capabilities and quantities, and had taken a tour of CLW’s facility. (Id. ¶ 16).
`
`Beyond Meat was looking for an alternative to DLF, in part because Beyond
`Meat executives believed that the excessive minimum purchases required under the
`parties’ agreement were too costly. (Id. ¶ 17). Rather than attempt to renegotiate the
`terms with DLF, Beyond Meat decided to find a way out of the contract. (Id.). After
`ensuring that CLW was ready to take over as co-manufacturer, Beyond Meat set in
`motion its plan to change its co-manufacturer, in violation of the Company’s exclusive
`supply agreement with DLF. (Id. ¶ 18).
`
`On April 12, 2017, Beyond Meat sent DLF a Notice of Breach alleging multiple
`material breaches of the exclusive supply agreement related to purported food safety
`concerns, including discovering Salmonella at DLF’s facility, allegations DLF claims
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:2909
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`were just a pretext to end the relationship. (Id.). On May 23, 2017, Beyond Meat sent
`a Notice of Termination to DLF stating that, due to DLF’s failure to cure the alleged
`breaches, the Company was terminating the exclusive supply agreement. (Id. ¶ 19).
`On May 25, 2017, DLF filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging breach of
`contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and fraud, among other claims. (Id. ¶ 20).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`In November 2018, Beyond Meat announced that the Company planned to go
`public. (Id. ¶ 21). In the weeks leading up to the Company’s IPO on May 2, 2019,
`there was significant excitement about the Company. Despite never having turned a
`profit, Beyond Meat was dubbed a “unicorn” startup, as a private company with a
`valuation of over $1 billion. (Id.). Not wanting to damage the positivity in the market
`surrounding the Company heading into the IPO, Beyond Meat concealed the truth
`about the DLF Litigation from investors in the Registration Statement dated May 1,
`2019, filed with the SEC in connection with the Company’s IPO (the “Registration
`Statement”). (Id. ¶ 22). In the Registration Statement, Beyond Meat affirmatively
`denied each of the claims made against the Company by DLF and provided only
`general risk disclosures related to the DLF Litigation. (Id.). These representations
`served to assuage investors’ concerns that DLF was likely to be awarded damages in
`the DLF Litigation or be able to lay claim to any portion of Beyond Meat’s intellectual
`property, including the Beyond Burger. (Id.).
`
`On May 2, 2019, the Company completed its Initial Public Offering, issuing
`11,068,750 shares of common stock at an offering price of $25.00 per share, generating
`approximately $276,718,750 in gross proceeds. (Id. ¶ 23). By the close of the market,
`Beyond Meat shares had soared to $65.75, for a gain of 163%, and it had become the
`biggest-popping U.S. IPO in nearly two decades. (Id.).
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to deny the merits of DLF’s
`claims and conceal from investors that Beyond Meat’s risk of being held liable in the
`DLF Litigation was closer to a near certainty rather than the mere possibility
`represented by the Company. (Id. ¶ 24). Because of the Company’s forceful denials of
`liability, the market was unable to decipher the Company’s true risks of liability. (Id.).
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:2910
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`Nevertheless, it was only a matter of time before the market discovered DLF’s claims
`were valid and the risks materialized. (Id.).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`On January 27, 2020, after the close of the markets, DLF issued a press release
`announcing that the judge in the DLF Litigation issued a Right to Attach Order, and by
`doing so, ruled that DLF “proved the probable validity of its claim that Beyond Meat
`breached its manufacturing agreement with Don Lee Farms.” (Id. ¶ 25). DLF’s press
`release also revealed that based on discovery produced in the DLF Litigation, the court
`granted its motion to amend its complaint to name Defendant Nelson and Beyond
`Meat’s Senior Quality Assurance Manager Jessica Quetsch and Director of Operations
`Anthony Miller in connection with its fraud claim, alleging that these individuals
`coordinated to intentionally doctor and omit material information from the 2016 safety
`audit report that Beyond Meat provided to DLF — the very report that induced DLF to
`extend its contract with Beyond Meat. (Id. ¶ 26).
`
`Following these revelations, for the first time, the market appreciated that DLF’s
`claims were legitimate and that Defendants had no basis for their blanket denial of
`culpability for the actions alleged in the DLF Litigation. (Id. ¶ 27). The market also
`appreciated that Beyond Meat’s warnings did not reflect the true level of risk the
`Company faced with respect to the DLF Litigation and it was likely to be subjected to
`significant penalties. (Id.). Indeed, even analysts at J.P. Morgan noted that this news
`“surely is an additional risk to the stock price.” (Id.).
`
`On this news, Beyond Meat’s stock price dropped $4.63, or over 3.7%, to close
`at $120.12 per share on January 28, 2020. (Id. ¶ 28). As a direct and proximate result
`of Defendants’ fraud, Beyond Meat investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars. (Id.
`¶ 29).
`
`Based on the above allegations, the FAC asserts two claims for relief:
`(1) violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 10(b)”) and
`the SEC’s Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 promulgated thereunder (“Rule 10b-5”);
`and (2) violations of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act (“Section 20(a)”). (Id. ¶¶ 172-188).
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:2911
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`Defendants make two requests for judicial notice.
`
`In the first request (the “RJN 1”), Defendants asked the Court to take judicial
`notice of several documents, including: (1) documents filed in the DLF Litigation; (2)
`Beyond Meat’s SEC Form 424B4, 10-Q Filings, and 10-K Filing; and (3) DLF’s
`January 27, 2020 press release. (Docket No. 56)). Plaintiffs do not oppose RJN 1.
`
`In the second request (the “RJN 2”), Defendants asked the Court to take judicial
`notice of several additional documents filed in the DLF Litigation, including: (1) A
`May 17, 2019 Minute Order; (2) Beyond Meat’s FAC in the DLF Litigation; (3)
`Beyond Meat’s Motion for Sanctions in DLF Litigation; (4) Beyond Meat’s Response
`to DLF’s Opposition to Proportion Summary Judgment Motion; (5) the Sahni
`Declaration; and (6) Beyond Meat’s Objection to Right to Attach Order in DLF
`Litigation. (Docket No. 64).
`
`As a general rule, “a district court may not consider any material beyond the
`pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
`668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). An exception to this general rule exists for (1) materials that
`are attached to or necessarily relied upon in the complaint, and (2) matters of public
`record that are not “subject to reasonable dispute.” Id. at 688-89. This exception does
`not apply to “disputed facts stated in public records.” Id. at 690.
`
`On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Strike Portions of RJN 2
`(the “RJN Motion”). (Docket No. 64). Defendants filed the Opposition on September
`28, 2020 (the “RJN Opp.”). (Docket No. 66).
`
`Plaintiffs principally argue that Exhibits 2 through 5 of the RJN 2 should be
`stricken because they are not cited in or necessarily relied upon in the FAC. (RJN
`Motion at 1). Plaintiffs also argue that although the RJN 2 documents were filed
`publicly, judicial notice is not appropriate because the content of the documents are
`disputed. (Id. at 3-6). Defendants argue that they include these public documents not
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 8
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:2912
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show that no facts have been
`established as “true” in the DLF Litigation. (RJN Opp. at 2-6). Defendants also argue
`that the documents are judicially noticeable under the incorporation by reference
`doctrine. (Id. at 7-10).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that matters of public record are not judicially
`noticeable when their content is in dispute. The Court is also dubious of Defendants’
`arguments that these documents are not being offered for the truth of their content and
`that they have been incorporated by reference. However, the Court would reach the
`same conclusion here regardless of whether it considered these documents.
`
`Accordingly, the RJN 2 and the RJN Motion are both DENIED as moot. The
`unopposed RJN 1 is GRANTED, as these documents are matters of public record not
`subject to reasonable dispute.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either (1) lacks a
`cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable
`legal theory.” Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013)
`
`In ruling on the Motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court follows Bell Atlantic
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
`“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . .
`to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The Court must disregard allegations that are legal
`conclusions, even when disguised as facts. See id. at 681 (“It is the conclusory nature
`of respondent’s allegations, rather than their extravagantly fanciful nature, that
`disentitles them to the presumption of truth.”); Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus
`& Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014). “Although ‘a well-pleaded
`complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof is improbable,’
`plaintiffs must include sufficient ‘factual enhancement’ to cross ‘the line between
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:2913
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`possibility and plausibility.’” Id. at 995 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57)
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`The Court must then determine whether, based on the allegations that remain
`and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the Complaint alleges a
`plausible claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.
`Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011). “Determining whether a
`complaint states a plausible claim for relief is ‘a context-specific task that requires the
`reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.’” Ebner v.
`Fresh, Inc., No. 13-56644, 2016 WL 5389307, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016) (as
`amended) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Where the facts as pleaded in the
`Complaint indicate that there are two alternative explanations, only one of which
`would result in liability, “plaintiffs cannot offer allegations that are merely consistent
`with their favored explanation but are also consistent with the alternative explanation.
`Something more is needed, such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that the
`alternative explanation is true, in order to render plaintiffs’ allegations plausible.”
`Eclectic Properties, 751 F.3d at 996–97; see also Somers, 729 F.3d at 960.
`
`Allegations of fraud must meet a higher pleading standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
`(requiring the pleading party to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting
`fraud or mistake”). It is well-established that, “[a]t the pleading stage, a complaint
`alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must not only meet the
`requirements of Rule 8, but must satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of both
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
`(‘PSLRA’).” In re Rigel Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 697 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir. 2012).
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`The “elements that must be pleaded to state a claim for securities fraud are
`strenuous but well established.” Curry v. Yelp Inc., 875 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir.
`2017). “To state a claim for violation of Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must allege a material
`misrepresentation or omission of fact, scienter, a connection with the purchase or sale
`of a security, transaction and loss causation, and economic loss.” Id.
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 10
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:2914
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`Defendants raise four arguments as to why the FAC should be dismissed: (1)
`Plaintiffs failed to plead falsity of any Beyond Meat statements; (2) Plaintiffs failed to
`plead scienter adequately; (3) Plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation; and (4)
`Plaintiffs’ § 20(a) claim should be dismissed because it is based on Plaintiffs’ Rule
`10b-5 claim. (Motion at 10-25).
`
`
`A.
`
`Falsity
`
`“[A] plaintiff must plead falsity with particularity: a plaintiff must ‘specify each
`statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is
`misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on
`information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which
`that belief is formed.’” Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd, 551 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir.
`2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1)).
`
`Plaintiffs point to two allegedly false statements made in Beyond Meat’s
`Registration Statement and 10-Q filings:
`1. “We deny all of [DLF’s] claims[.]” (FAC ¶¶ 119, 123, 128).
`2. “We believe we were justified in terminating the supply agreement with
`Don Lee Farms, that we did not misappropriate their alleged trade secrets,
`[and] that we are not liable for the fraud or negligent misrepresentation
`alleged in the proposed second amended complaint[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 115, 119,
`123, 128).
`
`Plaintiffs proceed under an omissions theory. The thrust of their argument is
`that these statements created a false impression that the DLF Litigation was meritless,
`when in fact, Defendants were aware of and failed to disclose specific facts showing
`that the risk of liability was “substantial.” (Opposition at 8). Defendants argue that
`these statements express an opinion, and that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts calling
`into question the basis of the opinion which would render the statements objectively
`false or misleading. (Motion at 11-17).
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:2915
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`As Plaintiffs correctly point out, “a statement that is literally true can be
`misleading and thus actionable under the securities laws.” Brody v. Transitional
`Hosps. Corp., 280 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no rule, however, that
`“once a disclosure is made, there is a duty to make it complete and accurate.” Id. An
`incomplete statement is not necessarily a misleading statement, and a completeness
`rule would sweep too broadly, as “[n]o matter how detailed and accurate disclosure
`statements are, there are likely to be additional details that could have been disclosed
`but were not.” Id.
`
`Statements expressing an opinion or belief can also be actionable under Section
`10(b). As the Supreme Court explained in the seminal case Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
`Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175, 179 (2015), “an investor
`cannot state a claim by alleging only that an opinion was wrong; the complaint must as
`well call into question the issuer’s basis for offering the opinion. And to do so, the
`investor cannot just say that the issuer failed to reveal its basis.” Id. at 194. Rather,
`the investor must identify specific, material facts “in the issuer’s possession at the
`time” of the statement “whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue
`misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context.” Id. at
`189, 194. “That is no small task for an investor.” Id. at 189.
`
`The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have not made this showing.
`
`First, Plaintiffs failed to allege with particularity any omitted facts in
`Defendants’ possession that plausibly demonstrate how the opinion statements were
`misleading.
`
`To support their claim that Beyond Meat manufactured a reason to terminate the
`agreement with DLF, Plaintiffs merely regurgitate DLF’s unproven allegations in the
`DLF Litigation. (FAC ¶ 84 (“DLF alleges that Beyond Meat invented false food safety
`concerns . . . as a pretext for terminating” the agreement)). They provide no facts
`showing, for example, that Defendants were aware of any information that Salmonella
`was not actually present in the new DLF facility when Beyond Meat terminated its
`agreement with DLF.
`______________________________________________________________________________
` CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 12
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00963-MWF-AFM Document 71 Filed 10/08/20 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:2916
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`
`
`
`Date: October 8, 2020
`
`
`Case No. CV 20-963-MWF (AFMx)
`Title:
`Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al
`Plaintiffs also claim Beyond Meat misappropriated DLF’s trade secrets in
`violation of the agreement, but they do not provide the agreement, or plead its contents
`with any specificity. Instead, Plaintiffs again regurgitate DLF’

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket