Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-02150-CW

Document 18

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) [email protected] JUDSON E. LOBDELL (BAR NO. 146041) [email protected] MARK R.S. FOSTER (BAR NO. 223682) [email protected] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: 415-268-7000 Facsimile: 415-268-7522 ANNA ERICKSON WHITE (BAR NO. 161385) [email protected] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: 650-813-5600 Facsimile: 650-494-0792 Attorneys for Defendants YAHOO! INC., TERRY S. SEMEL, SUSAN L. DECKER, DANIEL L. ROSENSWEIG, and FARZAD NAZEM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION IN RE: YAHOO! INC. ELLEN ROSENTHAL BRODSKY, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. YAHOO! INC., TERRY S. SEMEL, SUSAN L. DECKER, FARZAD NAZEM, and DANIEL ROSENSWEIG, Defendants. . CLASS ACTION Case No. CV-08-2150-CW [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

This Document Relates To: All Actions

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAC MASTER FILE NO. CV-08-2150-CW sf-2535552

Case 4:08-cv-02150-CW

Document 18

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER Yahoo! Inc., Terry S. Semel, Susan L. Decker, Daniel L. Rosensweig and Farzad Nazem ("Defendants") have moved the Court, pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), and Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Reform Act"), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 et seq., to dismiss with prejudice the Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "CAC"), filed on December 21, 2007, by Lead Plaintiffs Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System and Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky. This matter came on for hearing on September 18, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. Having considered all the papers filed by the parties in connection with Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, the parties' arguments at hearing on this matter, and other matters of which the Court may properly take judicial notice, the Court finds: 1. The CAC does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) or 12(b)(6), or the Reform Act. 2. Therefore, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the CAC is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ Day of _____________, 2008.

HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAC MASTER FILE NO. CV-08-2150-CW 1 sf-2535552