Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Schiro v. Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

February 10, 2020, Decided; February 10, 2020, Filed

18-CV-2352 (VEC)



VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:

Lead Plaintiffs Carlos Llantada, Richard Storm, Jr., and Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Fund have sued Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Cemex" or the "Company"), two of Cemex's officers, and Cemex Latam Holdings, S.A. ("CLH") for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. See Second Am. Compl. ("SAC"), Dkt. 60. Defendant Cemex and the two individual Cemex officers (collectively, the "Cemex Defendants") move to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 63. Defendant CLH moves to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2). Dkt. 69. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED.


Because the underlying facts of this case have not changed since the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Court refers the reader to that [*3]  Opinion for a full discussion of the facts. See Schiro v. Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V., 396 F. Supp. 3d 283, 292-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Cemex I").

On July 12, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Cemex's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a SAC on August 1, 2019. Dkt. 60. The SAC added CLH as a defendant for the first time.1 On September 5, 2019 both Cemex and CLH moved to dismiss the SAC. Dkts. 63, 69.


Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22828 *; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P100,746

CHRISTOPHER SCHIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., CEMEX LATAM HOLDINGS, S.A., FERNANDO A. GONZALEZ OLIVIERI, and JOSÉ ANTONIO GONZALEZ FLORES, Defendants.

Prior History: Schiro v. Cemex, 396 F. Supp. 3d 283, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116725 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2019)


bribes, disclosure, bribery, discovery, time-barred, announced, omission