Pheiffer v. Volkswagen AG et al, No. 1:2022cv00045 - Document 69 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.49) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file any renewed motion for reconsideration that includes all grounds for which they seek relief on or before March 29, 2024;and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike (Dkt. 60) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr on 02/14/2024. (dvanm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pheiffer v. Volkswagen AG et al Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division IN RE VOLKSWAGEN AG SECURITIES LITIGATION ) )Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-45(RDA/WEF) ) )CLASS ACTION ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Lead Plaintiff Laszio Rozsavolgyi's and Named Plaintiff Thomas Well's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 49) and Defendants' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative to File a Sur-reply (Dkt. 60). Having considered Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 50), Defendant's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 57), Plaintiffs' Reply in Support oftheir Motion for Reconsideration(Dkt. 59), Defendants' Motion to Strike (Dkt. 60), Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 66), and Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion to Strike (Dkt. 68), it is hereby ORDERED that this Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 49) and DENIES as MOOT Defendants' Motion to Strike for the reasons that follow. I. BACKGROUND On March 14, 2023, following a full briefing and oral argument, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its entirety and without prejudice. Dkt.48(Memorandum Opinion and Order). In granting Defendants' Motion,this Court found that(1) Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim against Defendants under Section 10(b), because they did not sufficiently plead a plausible connection between the alleged false statements of VWGoA and the Individual Defendants and the securities at issue, and (2) Plaintiffs failed to Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
