Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9475417
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc.
No. 9475417 · Decided February 15, 2024
No. 9475417·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 15, 2024
Citation
No. 9475417
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND No. 23-15433
AND LOCAL 282 ANNUITY TRUST
FUND DISTRICT NO. 9, Lead Plaintiff, On D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08254-MMC
Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: MILLER, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Local 282 Pension Trust Fund appeals from the district court’s order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing its complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in this
securities class action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
“We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
construing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Skilstaf, Inc.
v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion
to dismiss in a securities-fraud case brought under section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5, plaintiffs must adequately allege several
elements, including falsity. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Secs. Litig., 768 F.3d 1046,
1052 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because “a complaint stating claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
must satisfy the dual pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b) and the PSLRA [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act],” Zucco Partners,
LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009), plaintiffs face
“exacting” and “heightened” pleading standards, Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &
Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313, 321 (2007). To adequately allege falsity, a complaint
must “specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or
reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the
statement or omission is made on information and belief . . . state with particularity
all facts on which that belief is formed.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(b)(1). To meet the
2
particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), a complaint must also “state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Those standards represent an “unusual deviation from the usually lenient
requirements of federal rules pleading.” Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 437 (9th
Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 315–18; Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 37–49 (2011). They “prevent[] a
plaintiff from skirting dismissal by filing a complaint laden with vague allegations
of deception unaccompanied by a particularized explanation.” Metzler Inv. GMBH
v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).
Local 282’s falsity allegations rest on a single premise: BioMarin
Pharmaceutical, Inc. executives learned by November 2019 that the company’s
“Highest Dose Study” of its new gene therapy drug, BMN 307, yielded alarming
results, but they publicly represented until September 2021 that it displayed
“great,” safe testing data and significant future promise. Because Local 282’s
crucial allegation—that the Highest Dose Study results predated the challenged
statements—lacks particularity and substantiation, Local 282 does not sufficiently
plead that BioMarin’s statements were “untrue or misleading when made.” In re
GlenFed, Inc. Secs. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548–49 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Local 282 relies on multiple statements by BioMarin executives to allege
that BioMarin knew the Highest Dose Study results by November 2019, including
3
the following: “All of our nonclinical studies will be done in the first half of
[2019]”; “We plan to complete preclinical studies in the first half of 2019”; “We
finished our nonhuman primate and mass GLP studies”; and “BMN 307 ha[s]
moved beyond the ‘Preclinical’ stage and ha[s] transitioned to [human trials].” But
those generalized statements do not establish when the Highest Dose Study itself
began, when the study concluded, or when executives learned of its results.
Although BioMarin said that it “plan[ned] to complete preclinical studies in the
first half of 2019,” that expression of intent does not establish when the Highest
Dose Study was actually completed, especially because the company also said that
“[l]ong-term preclinical tests . . . may continue after the IND [investigational new
drug application] . . . is submitted.” And the Highest Dose Study was a non-GLP,
preclinical study on mice—not a nonclinical, mass-GLP, or primate study. Local
282 pleads no facts indicating either that BioMarin categorically completed all
BMN 307 preclinical testing by November 2019 or that its transition to human
trials ended all such testing.
Local 282 also relies on BioMarin’s 10-Q SEC filings, which show that
BMN 307’s development moved from “Preclinical” during the third quarter of
2019 to “Clinical Phase 1/2” in the first quarter of 2020. Without additional
explanation, simply pointing to that transition is not sufficient to allege that
BioMarin executives knew the Highest Dose Study results by November 2019.
4
Local 282’s allegations of falsity depend on a specific chronology of events.
Because Local 282 does not allege sufficient, particularized facts to support that
proffered chronology, it fails to adequately plead falsity. See Glazer Cap. Mgmt.,
L.P. v. Forescout Techs., Inc., 63 F.4th 747, 769 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that
securities plaintiffs must plead “with particularity the facts supporting each of their
beliefs as to why the challenged statements were false or misleading”).
AFFIRMED.
5
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2024 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND No.
033:21-cv-08254-MMC Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
04BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 15, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9475417 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.