According to a press release dated March 01, 2010, the lawsuit alleges that shareholders of Landwin Management LLC, which was formed to purchase and manage investment properties, have lost their entire investment due to improper actions undertaken by some of its officers and board members. Among those cited by the lawsuit are: improper financial compensation to themselves and use of company assets; false representation of business opportunities and potential profits; misconduct resulting in substantial damages to the investment entity; and enrichment through unlawful profits.
On August 27, 2010, a First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. On November 8, 2010, Judge Cormac J. Carney signed the order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel. Mr. Kronk's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Mr. Wyatt as lead counsel for this putative class action. On November 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. On December 20, 2010, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The defendants' motions to dismiss were denied on January 28, 2011. The motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. Judge Cormac J. Carney also denied the motion to certify the class.
On February 16, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the case on March 28, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. According to the Order signed by Judge Cormac J. Carney on June 7, 2011, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted in substantial part. According to the Order, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for violations of California Corporations Code Section 25501.5 against individual defendants.
According to the Order signed by Judge Cormac J. Carney on June 27, 2011, by order dated June 7, 2011, 120, this Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss the plaintiff's federal claims, leaving only two state-law claims remaining in this action. The Court also issued an order to show cause to the plaintiff regarding the basis for this Courts jurisdiction over the remaining claims 122. The plaintiff did not respond to the Courts order. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the two remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses this action for failure to comply with this Courts order.
On July 17, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.