SEC CASE FAILING - REQUEST FOR JUDGEMENT
INTRO
The spartan, 15-page Complaint filed in this matter lacks even basic details of the purported “elaborate and fraudulent scheme” (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2) allegedly at the center of this case and, similarly, omits core allegations on essential elements of its claims. Accordingly, the Hemp Defendants have filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) to obtain much-needed and long-requested relief from this underpleaded Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF. No. 79), rather than arguing why the Complaint’s threadbare allegations are sufficient under the law, simply cuts-and-pastes pages upon pages of the SEC’s deficient allegations, claiming nothing more is required under the Rules. However, as set forth below and in the Motion’s opening papers, these same allegations fail to meet the plausible pleading standards of Rule 8(a), as well as the Rule 9(b) heightened standard governing the Complaint’s five fraud claims. Relatedly, the SEC has failed to plead (plausibly, particularly, or otherwise) essential elements of its claims, requiring dismissal under Rule 12(c). Hence, the Hemp Defendants respectfully request an entry of judgment on the pleadings in their favor.
DISCUSSION
A. The Motion Is Timely Because Its Filing Does Not Delay Trial.
B. The Complaint’s Group-Pleaded Claims Do Not Satisfy Rule 8(a) Notice Standards.
C. The Group-Pleaded Fraud Claims Likewise Fail Under Rules 9(b) and 12(c).
D. The Complaint’s Scheme and Control Group Liability Allegations Also Fail.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and those raised in the Motion’s opening papers, the Hemp Defendants respectfully request an entry of judgment on the pleadings in their favor.
