Africa v. Jianpu Technology Inc.
Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-01419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Africa v. Jianpu Technology Inc., Judge Furman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims for inadequate scienter pleading and closed the case.
Enrique Africa and the defendants; all claims were dismissed, judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Enrique Africa v. Jianpu Technology Inc., the court dismissed Africa’s claims because he still had not adequately alleged scienter, meaning the required state of mind for the claims. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.
Africa had already amended his complaint twice. The court had previously warned that he would have one final opportunity to amend, and it concluded that another amendment would be futile. The court therefore denied leave to amend.
Judge Furman’s ruling also found that the parties’ legal claims and defenses were not frivolous and that their factual assertions had adequate support. The court imposed no sanctions, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Africa v. Jianpu Technology Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01419
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 23, 2023
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all of Africa’s claims because Africa still did not adequately plead scienter. The court denied leave to amend, concluding that any further amendment would be futile. Judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor, and the case was closed.
Amendment history
Africa had received two opportunities to amend his complaint. The court had expressly cautioned in a prior related proceeding that the next opportunity would be his final chance. Based on that history, the court determined that allowing another amendment would not be productive.
Rule 11 findings
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act required the court to make specific findings about compliance with Rule 11(b), which governs whether legal claims and defenses are nonfrivolous and whether factual assertions have evidentiary support or a reasonable basis. The court found that the legal claims and defenses presented during the litigation were nonfrivolous and that the factual contentions had adequate support or were reasonably based on belief or lack of information. No Rule 11 sanctions were warranted.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court granted a motion to dismiss for inadequate pleading rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.