`
`United States District Court
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLASDIVISION
`
`PHILLIP R. CRUTCHFIELD,
`Individually and on Behalf of All Others
`Similarly Situated
`
`Vv.
`
`MATCH GROUP, INC., AMANDA W.
`GINSBERG,and GARY SWIDLER
`
`CORCOR4ORCOR60?4GRCORKG
`
`ORDER
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-2356-S
`
`This Order addresses Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
`
`(“Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 54]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class
`
`Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Second Amended Complaint”)
`
`[ECF No. 51], the Motion to Dismiss and its accompanying exhibits [ECF No. 55], Plaintiffs’
`
`Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 58], and Defendants’ Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 62].
`
`To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a
`
`plaintiff must “plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
`
`Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`The Court must accept well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the
`
`plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (Sth Cir. 2007). Because
`
`the Second Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud, Plaintiffs must also “state with
`
`particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,” FED. R. Crv. P. 9(b), and must comply with the
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02356-S Document 63 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2080
`
`strictures imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), see 15 U.S.C. §
`
`78u-4(b).
`
`“The PSLRA has raised the pleading bar even higher and enhances Rule 9(b)’s
`
`particularity requirement for pleading fraud in two ways.” Neiman v. Bulmahn, 854 F.3d 741, 746
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02356-S Document 63 Filed 11/19/21 Page2of2 PagelD 2081
`
`(Sth Cir. 2017) (quoting Local 731 LB. of T. Excavators & Pavers Pension Tr. Fund v. Diodes,
`
`Inc., 810 F.3d 951, 956 (Sth Cir. 2016)). “First, the plaintiff must specify each statement alleged
`
`to have been misleading.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 78u-4(b)(1). “Second, for each act or omission alleged to be false or misleading, plaintiffs must
`
`state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the
`
`requisite state of mind.” Neiman, 854 F.3d at 746 (internal quotation marks andcitation omitted);
`
`see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2)(A).
`
`The Court has carefully scrutinized all 164 pages of the Second Amended Complaint,
`
`which contain extensive allegations addressing pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF No. 50]. Applying the standards of Twombly and Iqbal,
`
`as well as the PSLRA’s heightened particularity requirement, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
`
`adequately specified at least some allegedly misleading statements or omissions. The Court further
`
`finds that though Plaintiffs have pleaded the requisite inference of scienter for surviving a motion
`
`to dismiss, the Court anticipates that it will revisit this issue at a later phase in the litigation after
`
`discovery takes place.
`
`Accordingly, dismissal
`
`is not warranted at
`
`this time and the Court DENIES the
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED November19, 2021.
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02356-S Document 63 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2081
`
`
`
`KAREN GREN SCHOLER
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
