9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12 IN RE ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Lead SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON 14 CONVENIENS
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 This is a putative securities class action brought on behalf of persons and/or entities that 21 purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of defendant Arlo Technologies, Inc. 22 (“Arlo”) pursuant and/or traceable to the company’s registration statement and prospectus issued 23 in connection with the company’s initial public offering (“IPO”).
24 Currently before the court is the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens pursuant to 25 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, on the basis of Arlo’s Federal Forum Provision (“FFP”), 26 found in its certificate of incorporation. The motion is made by Arlo; defendants Matthew 27 McRae, Christine M. Gorjanc, Patrick C.S. Lo, Andrew W. Kim, Ralph E. Faison, Jocelyn E. 28 Carter-Miller, and Grady K. Summers (collectively, “Individual Defendants”; together with
Hearing Date
September 01, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12 IN RE ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Lead SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON 14 CONVENIENS
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 This is a putative securities class action brought on behalf of persons and/or entities that 21 purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of defendant Arlo Technologies, Inc. 22 (“Arlo”) pursuant and/or traceable to the company’s registration statement and prospectus issued 23 in connection with the company’s initial public offering (“IPO”).
24 Currently before the court is the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens pursuant to 25 Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, on the basis of Arlo’s Federal Forum Provision (“FFP”), 26 found in its certificate of incorporation. The motion is made by Arlo; defendants Matthew 27 McRae, Christine M. Gorjanc, Patrick C.S. Lo, Andrew W. Kim, Ralph E. Faison, Jocelyn E. 28 Carter-Miller, and Grady K. Summers (collectively, “Individual Defendants”; together with