{"cached_at":"2026-10-26T09:53:45.389486+00:00","cl_docket_id":"67656350","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","id":67656350,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/njd/","court_id":"njd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10301862/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9382/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2023-08-01T13:42:06.544276-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T05:55:03.746726-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jamel K. Semper","referred_to_str":"Michael A. Hammer","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:39:52.058146-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-08-01","date_terminated":"2025-03-13","date_last_filing":"2025-03-13","case_name_short":"HOUCK","case_name":"HOUCK v. EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC.","case_name_full":"","slug":"houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc","docket_number":"2:23-cv-04113","docket_number_core":"2304113","docket_number_raw":"2:23-cv-04113","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JKS","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"MAH","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"515776","cause":"28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-08-01T13:42:06.542652-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13088292/","id":13088292,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8778909/","attorney_id":8778909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.992489-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.992497-07:00","name":"NATHAN KROEKER","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13088291/","id":13088291,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8778909/","attorney_id":8778909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2024-03-05","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 03/05/2024","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.972277-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.972285-07:00","name":"RANDALL  GONZALE","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13088290/","id":13088290,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8778909/","attorney_id":8778909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.952428-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.952439-07:00","name":"JOSEPH MASTRANGELO","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13088289/","id":13088289,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8778909/","attorney_id":8778909,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.923242-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.923251-07:00","name":"EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13088288/","id":13088288,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9848135/","attorney_id":9848135,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8778908/","attorney_id":8778908,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","docket_id":67656350,"name":"Lead Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.887351-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-19T12:36:43.887361-07:00","name":"WILLIAM HOUCK","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/419309474/","id":419309474,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/433227913/","id":433227913,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/41/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-03-14T10:02:00.547800-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-25T10:15:25.697526-08:00","sha1":"f46a11e183422783a0f30a7c83849ae7d5520f08","page_count":2,"file_size":171342,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.41.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.41.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH      Document 41       Filed 03/13/25   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 733\n\n\n\n\n                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n  WILLIAM HOUCK, Individually and\n  on Behalf of All Others Similarly\n  Situated,\n                                                Case No. 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH\n                            Plaintiff,\n\n                     v.\n\n  EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n  JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, and\n  NATHAN KROEKER,\n\n                            Defendants.\n\n\n\n                              ORDER OF DISMISSAL\n\n       On November 8, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion (ECF No. 38) and Order\n\n (ECF No. 39) granting, without prejudice, Defendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss\n\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 26).\n\n       On January 23, 2025, Defendants filed a notice requesting the Court enter a\n\n final judgment of dismissal as Plaintiffs did not make any additional filings during\n\n the 45 days granted to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have not responded to\n\n Defendants' request.\n\n       Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED\n\n that this action be, and hereby is, dismissed.\n\n                                            1\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH   Document 41   Filed 03/13/25   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 734\n\n\n\n   IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n\n   DATED: March 13, 2025                   /s/ Jamel K. Semper\n                                           _____________________________\n                                           The Honorable Jamel K. Semper\n                                           United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n                                      2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-12-24T06:31:04.930696-08:00","document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119022298681","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-14T10:02:00.487053-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T05:55:06.450960-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":135,"description":"ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 3/13/2025. (mxw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/414411356/","id":414411356,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/428057355/","id":428057355,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/40/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-01-23T15:01:48.847565-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-04T02:29:49.838077-08:00","sha1":"1b7c57b692217e7f37d1d7787430eb6915e86c86","page_count":3,"file_size":113606,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.40.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH     Document 40   Filed 01/23/25   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 728\n\n\n\n\n Matthew T. Martens                          Timothy Perla (pro hac vice)\n WILMER CUTLER PICKERING                     WILMER CUTLER PICKERING\n    HALE AND DORR LLP                           HALE AND DORR LLP\n 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW                 60 State Street\n Washington, DC 20037                        Boston, MA 02109\n (t) (202) 663-6000                          (t) (617) 526-6000\n (f) (202) 663-6363                          (f) (617) 526-5000\n matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com              timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com\n\n Attorney for Defendants                     Charles C. Bridge (pro hac vice)\n                                             WILMER CUTLER PICKERING\n                                                HALE AND DORR LLP\n                                             7 World Trade Center\n                                             250 Greenwich Street\n                                             New York, NY 10007\n                                             (t) (212) 230-8000\n                                             (f) (212) 230-8888\n                                             charles.bridge@wilmerhale.com\n\n                                             Attorneys for Defendants\n\n                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                       DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n  WILLIAM HOUCK, Individually and\n  on Behalf of All Others Similarly      Case No. 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH\n  Situated,\n\n                           Plaintiff,    DEFENDANTS\u2019 NOTICE AND\n                                         REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL\n                    v.                   JUDGMENT\n\n  EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n  JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, and\n  NATHAN KROEKER,\n\n                           Defendants.\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH      Document 40     Filed 01/23/25    Page 2 of 3 PageID: 729\n\n     DRAFT\u2014ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT\u2014PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n       PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.,\n\n Joseph Mastrangelo, and Nathan Kroeker respectfully request that, pursuant to\n\n Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court enter a final\n\n judgment of dismissal in this action. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs\u2019 Second\n\n Amended Class Action Complaint on November 8, 2024, and granted Plaintiffs the\n\n opportunity to file an amended complaint within 45 days. ECF No. 39. Plaintiffs\n\n have not made any additional filings as of the date of this notice, thus warranting a\n\n final judgment of dismissal.\n\n\n\n Dated: January 23, 2025                Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                        WILMER CUTLER PICKERING\n                                         HALE AND DORR LLP\n\n                                        /s/ Matthew T. Martens\n                                        Matthew T. Martens (NJ Bar No. 47541998)\n                                        2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW\n                                        Washington, DC 20037\n                                        (t) (202) 663-6000\n                                        (f) (202) 663-6363\n                                        matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com\n\n                                        Timothy Perla (pro hac vice)\n                                        60 State Street\n                                        Boston, MA 02109\n                                        (t) (617) 526-6000\n                                        (f) (617) 526-5000\n                                        timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com\n\n                                        Charles C. Bridge (pro hac vice)\n                                        7 World Trade Center\n\n                                           1\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH   Document 40   Filed 01/23/25   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 730\n\n     DRAFT\u2014ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT\u2014PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n                                    250 Greenwich Street\n                                    New York, NY 10007\n                                    (t) (212) 230-8000\n                                    (f) (212) 230-8888\n                                    charles.bridge@wilmerhale.com\n\n                                    Attorneys for Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                      2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-03-03T19:05:45.749839-08:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119022140391","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/431940988/","id":431940988,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/40/1/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2025-03-03T19:02:11.801917-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T19:02:11.801931-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":86091,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"119022140392","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-23T15:01:48.771713-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.739336-08:00","date_filed":"2025-01-23","time_filed":"17:47:45","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-01-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":133,"description":"NOTICE by EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, NATHAN KROEKER and Request for Entry of Final Judgement (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(MARTENS, MATTHEW) (Entered: 01/23/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/413031310/","id":413031310,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/426589477/","id":426589477,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-01-09T03:32:52.520788-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.717593-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-01-09T03:32:52.513582-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.682474-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - Case Closed in Error, Please Disregard. (tf, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/409005073/","id":409005073,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/421228981/","id":421228981,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-11-21T10:41:09.294561-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-21T10:41:09.297796-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"QC - Generic Message","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-11-21T10:41:09.287381-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-21T10:41:09.287391-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-21","time_filed":"13:01:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/407664091/","id":407664091,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/419422969/","id":419422969,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/38/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-11-08T14:06:18.614393-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.621305-08:00","sha1":"3cc834424d35d926174494dc1232359a59c46a59","page_count":13,"file_size":296115,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.38.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.515776/gov.uscourts.njd.515776.38.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH          Document 38       Filed 11/08/24      Page 1 of 13 PageID: 713\n\n\n\n\n  NOT FOR PUBLICATION\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n   WILLIAM HOUCK, Individually and On\n   Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,                   Case No. 23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH\n\n                Plaintiff,\n   v.                                                                     OPINION\n\n   EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n   JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, and NATHAN                                     November 8, 2024\n   KROEKER,\n\n               Defendants.\n\n  SEMPER, District Judge.\n\n         Before the Court is Defendants Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (\u201cEos\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d),\n\n  Joseph Mastrangelo, and Nathan Kroeker\u2019s (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) motion to dismiss Plaintiff\n\n  William Houck\u2019s (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cHouck\u201d) Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule\n\n  of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF 26, \u201cDef. Br.\u201d) Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. (ECF 27,\n\n  \u201cOpp.\u201d) Defendants filed a brief in reply. (ECF 32, \u201cReply.\u201d) The Court reviewed Plaintiff\u2019s\n\n  Second Amended Complaint (ECF 25, \u201cSAC\u201d) and the parties\u2019 submissions and decided the\n\n  motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule\n\n  78.1. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants\u2019 motion is GRANTED.\n\n  I.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n\n         Plaintiff William Houck brings this putative class action on behalf of persons and entities\n\n  that purchased or otherwise acquired Eos securities between May 9, 2023 and July 27, 2023,\n\n  inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). (SAC \u00b6 1.) Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under\n\n  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d). (Id.)\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH            Document 38        Filed 11/08/24      Page 2 of 13 PageID: 714\n\n\n\n\n         A. Eos and the Individual Defendants\n\n         Founded in 2008, Eos designs, develops, manufactures, and markets zinc-based energy\n\n  storage solutions for utility-scale, microgrid, and commercial & industrial (\u201cC&I\u201d) applications.\n\n  (Id. \u00b6 21.) Eos is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices in\n\n  Edison, New Jersey. (Id. \u00b6 17.) Eos\u2019 common stock trades on the NASDAQ Stock Market\n\n  (\u201cNASDAQ\u201d) under the symbol \u201cEOSE.\u201d (Id.) It warrants trade under the symbol \u201cEOSEW.\u201d (Id.)\n\n  Defendant Joseph Mastrangelo was Eos\u2019 chief executive officer at all relevant times. (Id. \u00b6 18.)\n\n  Defendant Nathan Kroeker has been Eos\u2019 chief financial officer since January 23, 2023. (Id. \u00b6 19.)\n\n         Plaintiff asserts that because Eos was not profitable, the Company touted its booked orders\n\n  to the market. (Id. \u00b6 23.) Eos would announce each newly booked order. (Id.) In its quarterly\n\n  financial highlights, Eos included booked orders and order backlog information. (Id.) Eos\u2019 order\n\n  backlog was vital to the Company\u2019s future because it demonstrated market interest in the\n\n  Company\u2019s products. (Id. \u00b6 24.) Eos executives would routinely discuss order backlog in earnings\n\n  calls and would specifically respond to analyst questions about the backlog. (Id. \u00b6 23.) The\n\n  Company\u2019s backlog was used by Defendants to raise funds and increase stock value. (Id. \u00b6 24.)\n\n         B. Bridgelink Commodities\n\n         On March 9, 2022, Eos announced the largest deal in the Company\u2019s history. (Id. \u00b6 30.) As\n\n  Eos stated in a press release that day, Eos had entered a deal with Bridgelink Commodities for a\n\n  total order value of up to $150 million, or nearly 75% of Eos\u2019 backlog. (Id.) On July 6, 2022, Eos\n\n  announced another deal with Bridgelink Commodities that increased its order value to $181\n\n  million. (Id. \u00b6 35.) As a result, the order backlog increased in value to over $460 million. (Id.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                    2\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH            Document 38        Filed 11/08/24      Page 3 of 13 PageID: 715\n\n\n\n\n            C. Allegations of Materially False and Misleading Statements\n\n            On May 9, 2023, the Company issued a press release titled \u201cEos Energy Enterprises\n\n  Reports First Quarter 2023 Financial Results.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 62.) Therein, the Company, in relevant part,\n\n  stated:\n\n                  Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE) (\u201cEos\u201d or the\n                  \u201cCompany\u201d), a leading provider of safe, scalable, efficient, and\n                  sustainable zinc-based long duration energy storage systems, today\n                  announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31,\n                  2023.\n\n                  First Quarter Financial Highlights\n                  \u2022 $8.8 million revenue, compared to $3.3 million in 1Q 2022, a\n                     168% increase year-over-year.\n                  \u2022 Cost of Goods Sold of $26.9 million, a decrease of 24%\n                     compared to 1Q 2022, representing a 25% reduction in product\n                     unit cost year-over-year.\n                  \u2022 Operating expenses of $19.4 million remained flat year-over\n                     year.\n                  \u2022 $16.1 million cash balance on March 31, 2023, compared to\n                     $17.1 million on December 31, 2022.\n                  \u2022 Booked $86.3 million in orders, resulting in an order backlog\n                     of $535.1 million as of March 31, 2023, an increase of more\n                     than 2.5x versus 1Q 2022.\n\n  (Id.) Then, on May 10, 2023, the Company held an earnings call to discuss Eos\u2019 2023 fiscal first\n\n  quarter results. (Id. \u00b6 63.) Therein, Defendant Mastrangelo, in relevant part, stated:\n\n                  Moving on to Page 4 on the operating highlights. You continue to\n                  see good progress. Commercially, I\u2019ll go through some more details\n                  on the pipeline in a future slide, but we continue to see the\n                  opportunity pipeline increase. We booked a large order for $87\n                  million, nearly $87 million, and that brought our backlog up to\n                  $535 million with \u2013 representing 2.2 gigawatt hours of power.\n                                                    ...\n                  When you look at our current pipeline, current pipeline is up in Q2,\n                  and we signed over $500 million of LOIs. Now think again about\n                  how we think about the movement through our pipeline. We don't\n                  call it current pipeline unless we have a technical use case where we\n                  can provide a technical proposal to the customer, which then leads\n                  us to giving them a nonbinding financial quote, which that stands at\n                  $6 billion in and of itself. Our goal with that combined $7 billion is\n\n\n\n                                                    3\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH            Document 38         Filed 11/08/24      Page 4 of 13 PageID: 716\n\n\n\n\n                 to then get customers to sign an LOI with us. So we get on the same\n                 side of the table with them and close the project out to allow them\n                 to generate revenue and allow us to put product out in the field. That\n                 stands now at $1.5 billion with 7 gigawatt hours of potential.\n\n                 We work through those. And when you think about the timing of\n                 LOI to firm commitment, you're working through various\n                 different aspects on commercial terms, permitting, land rights and\n                 interconnections to be able to get to a firm commitment that then\n                 goes into our backlog, which, as I stated earlier, stands at $535\n                 million, up $71 million versus fourth quarter.\n\n  (Id.) Plaintiff asserts the statements relating to the backlog were materially false and misleading\n\n  because they failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company\u2019s business, operations,\n\n  and prospects. (Id. \u00b6 64.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose (1) that Bridgelink\n\n  Power, the parent company of Eos\u2019 largest customer, Bridgelink Commodities, defaulted on a\n\n  secured loan facility and was embroiled in litigation with the lender to seize the parent\u2019s assets; (2)\n\n  that the foregoing threatened Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 commitment and ability to purchase Eos\n\n  products; (3) that, as a result, there was a material risk to Eos\u2019 backlog; and (4) that, as such, there\n\n  was a material undisclosed risk to Eos\u2019 business, operations, and prospects. (Id.)\n\n         D. The Iceberg Report\n\n         On July 27, 2023, during market hours, non-party Iceberg Research (\u201cIceberg\u201d) published\n\n  a report entitled \u201c62% Of $Eose\u2019s Backlog Is With Financially Distressed Bridgelink Whose\n\n  Renewable Energy Assets Were Foreclosed And Auctioned Off In May.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 48.) Therein,\n\n  Iceberg explained that Bridgelink Power, the parent company of Bridgelink Commodities, had\n\n  defaulted on a secured loan facility approximately two months after Bridgelink Commodities had\n\n  signed the first order with Eos and was embroiled in litigation with the lender to seize its assets.\n\n  (Id.) Eos had not disclosed the information about Bridgelink Power\u2019s financial issues. (Id. \u00b6 49.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                     4\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH           Document 38        Filed 11/08/24      Page 5 of 13 PageID: 717\n\n\n\n\n  On this news, Eos\u2019 stock price fell $0.83 per share, or 23.9%, to close at $2.65 per share on July\n\n  27, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. (Id. \u00b6 50.)\n\n          That same day, after market hours, Eos issued a press release entitled \u201cEos Energy\n\n  Enterprises Provides Preliminary Results & Issues Statement Regarding Its Customer\n\n  Commitments and Backlog.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 51.) In relevant part, the press release stated:\n\n                 The Company also issues the following response to statements made\n                 about its customer backlog in external reports, republished and\n                 amplified on social media, regarding two of the Company\u2019s\n                 customers:\n                                                   ...\n                 The report also referred to legal proceedings involving multiple\n                 Bridgelink legal entities. The Company believes that its customer,\n                 Bridgelink Commodities, LLC, is a separate legal entity which is\n                 not implicated in the legal matters highlighted in today\u2019s statements.\n                 This customer, representing 45% of the Company's backlog,\n                 reconfirmed today that it continues to build pipeline and is actively\n                 seeking financing for energy storage projects covered by Eos\u2019s\n                 multi-year Master Supply Agreement.\n\n                 Eos\u2019 commercial pipeline remains strong and continues to grow in\n                 line with independent third party market forecasts. The Company\n                 believes its long-term business fundamentals are strongly supported\n                 by the secular shift occurring in the energy industry requiring long\n                 duration energy storage.\n\n  (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that the May 9, 2023 and May 10, 2023 statements regarding the Company\u2019s\n\n  backlog were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose\u2014as\n\n  highlighted in the Iceberg Report\u2014that Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 parent company defaulted on a\n\n  secured loan facility and was embroiled in litigation with a lender to seize the parent\u2019s assets,\n\n  which could impact Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 ability to fulfill its contractual obligations to Eos.\n\n  (Id. \u00b6 64.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                   5\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH             Document 38        Filed 11/08/24       Page 6 of 13 PageID: 718\n\n\n\n\n  II.     LEGAL STANDARD\n\n               a. Rule 12(b)(6)\n\n          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss for \u201cfailure to state a\n\n  claim upon which relief can be granted[.]\u201d For a complaint to survive dismissal under the Rule, it\n\n  must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,\n\n  556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim\n\n  is facially plausible \u201cwhen the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the\n\n  reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d Iqbal, 556 U.S. at\n\n  678. Although the plausibility standard \u201cdoes not impose a probability requirement, it does require\n\n  a pleading to show more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.\u201d Connelly\n\n  v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations\n\n  omitted). As a result, a plaintiff must \u201callege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that\n\n  discovery will uncover proof of [his] claims.\u201d Id. at 789.\n\n               b. Rule 9(b)\n\n          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) imposes additional pleading requirements.\n\n  \u201cIndependent of the standard applicable to Rule 12(b)(6) motions, Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened\n\n  pleading requirement of factual particularity with respect to allegations of fraud.\u201d In re Rockefeller\n\n  Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). Thus, pursuant to Rule 9(b), when\n\n  \u201calleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting\n\n  fraud or mistake . . . [m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person\u2019s mind may be\n\n  alleged generally.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A party alleging fraud must therefore support its allegations\n\n  with factual details such as \u201cthe who, what, when, where and how of the events at issue.\u201d U.S. ex\n\n  rel. Moore & Co., P.A. v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC, 812 F.3d 294, 307 (3d Cir. 2016).\n\n\n\n\n                                                     6\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH            Document 38         Filed 11/08/24      Page 7 of 13 PageID: 719\n\n\n\n\n  Accordingly, \u201c[t]o satisfy the particularity standard, \u2018the plaintiff must plead or allege the date,\n\n  time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation\n\n  into a fraud allegation.\u2019\u201d Feingold v. Graff, 516 F. App'x 223, 226 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Frederico\n\n  v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2007)). This heightened standard is designed to \u201censure\n\n  that defendants are placed on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged, and\n\n  to safeguard defendants against spurious charges of fraud.\u201d Craftmatic Sec. Litig. v. Kraftsow, 890\n\n  F.2d 628, 645 (3d Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n               c. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) Pleading Requirements\n\n          \u201cTo state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule\n\n  10b-5, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a\n\n  connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4)\n\n  reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.\u201d Ortiz\n\n  v. Canopy Growth Corp., 537 F. Supp. 3d 621, 639 (D.N.J. 2021) (citing City of Edinburgh Council\n\n  v. Pfizer, Inc., 754 F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2014)).\n\n          For plaintiffs asserting securities-fraud claims, the PSLRA imposes additional pleading\n\n  requirements. \u201cThe PSLRA established heightened pleading requirements for a plaintiff to meet in\n\n  order to plead a cause of action successfully in class actions alleging securities fraud.\u201d Rahman v.\n\n  Kid Brands, Inc., 736 F.3d 237, 241 (3d Cir. 2013). The PSLRA \u201crequires that a complaint state\n\n  with particularity both the facts constituting the alleged violation, and the facts evidencing scienter,\n\n  i.e., the defendant\u2019s intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.\u201d Id. at 241-42 (quoting Tellabs,\n\n  Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 313 (2007)) (internal quotations omitted). In\n\n  other words, plaintiffs bringing a claim involving an allegedly false or misleading statement must\n\n  \u201c(1) \u2018specify each statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the\n\n\n\n\n                                                     7\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH                 Document 38           Filed 11/08/24          Page 8 of 13 PageID: 720\n\n\n\n\n  statement is misleading,\u2019 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1), and (2) \u2018state with particularity facts giving rise\n\n  to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,\u2019 \u00a7 78u-4(b)(2).\u201d\n\n  Rahman, 736 F.3d at 242 (quoting Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 321).\n\n           Both provisions of the PSLRA pleading standard require that facts be pled \u201cwith\n\n  particularity,\u201d echoing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)\u2019s requirements. 1 Id. at 241 n.3.\n\n  Although the \u201cPSLRA replaced Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) as the applicable pleading standard in private\n\n  securities class actions,\u201d Rule 9(b)\u2019s particularity requirement \u201cis comparable to and effectively\n\n  subsumed by the requirements\u201d of the PSLRA. Id. This standard \u201crequires plaintiffs to plead the\n\n  who, what, when, where and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.\u201d Institutional Inv\u2019rs\n\n  Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 253 (3d Cir. 2009). Section 78u-4(b)(1) also adds the requirement\n\n  that where \u201can allegation regarding [a defendant\u2019s] statement or omission is made on information\n\n  [or] belief,\u201d plaintiffs must \u201cstate with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed\u201d\u2014that\n\n  is, they must describe the sources of information with particularity, including \u201cthe who, what,\n\n  when, where and how of the sources, as well as the who, what, when, where and how of the\n\n  information those sources convey.\u201d Id.; see 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(b)(1).\n\n           As to the second element, the PSLRA\u2019s approach for pleading scienter sharply deviates\n\n  from Rule 9(b), which allows plaintiffs to plead the scienter element generally. Avaya, 564 F.3d at\n\n  253. Under the PSLRA, the court must evaluate whether all the facts in the complaint as alleged,\n\n  taken collectively, give rise to a \u201cstrong inference of scienter\u201d \u2013 not whether any individual\n\n  allegation viewed in isolation meets that standard. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 323. In determining whether\n\n  the pleaded facts give rise to a strong inference of scienter, the court must \u201ctake into account\n\n\n\n           1\n             Rule 9(b) provides that when \u201calleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the\n  circumstances constituting fraud or mistake . . . [m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person\u2019s mind\n  may be alleged generally.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Defendants do not separately move pursuant to Rule 9(b).\n\n\n                                                            8\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH            Document 38        Filed 11/08/24      Page 9 of 13 PageID: 721\n\n\n\n\n  plausible opposing inferences.\u201d Id. This involves a comparative inquiry that evaluates how likely\n\n  one conclusion is as compared to others, in light of the pleaded facts. Id. Thus, the court must\n\n  consider plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant\u2019s conduct as well as inferences\n\n  favoring the plaintiff. Id. at 324. Although the inference that the defendant acted with scienter need\n\n  not be irrefutable, the inference must be more than merely \u201creasonable\u201d or \u201cpermissible.\u201d Id. A\n\n  complaint will survive only if a reasonable person would \u201cdeem the inference of scienter cogent\n\n  and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.\u201d Id.\n\n  III.   ANALYSIS\n\n         A. Count 1: Violation of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5\n\n             Promulgated Thereunder Against All Defendants\n\n         In Count 1, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. (SAC \u00b6\u00b6\n\n  89-99.) \u201cThe private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 . . . creates liability for\n\n  false or misleading statements or omissions of material fact that affect trading on the secondary\n\n  market.\u201d In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d at 1417. To state a securities fraud\n\n  claim pursuant to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff \u201cmust allege (1) a material\n\n  misrepresentation or omission, (2) scienter, (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or\n\n  omission and the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or\n\n  omission, (5) economic loss, and (6) loss causation.\u201d City of Edinburgh Council v. Pfizer, Inc., 754\n\n  F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2014).\n\n         Defendants\u2019 first argument for dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s claim is failure to plead a false or\n\n  misleading statement. (Def. Br. at 14-19.) Plaintiff has identified the following statements, as\n\n  originally bolded and italicized in the Second Amended Complaint, as false or misleading:\n\n                 \u2022   In Eos\u2019 May 9, 2023 press release, the Company stated it\n                     \u201c[b]ooked $86.3 million in orders, resulting in an order backlog\n\n\n\n                                                    9\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH             Document 38        Filed 11/08/24      Page 10 of 13 PageID:\n                                              722\n\n\n\n                    of $535.1 million as of March 31, 2023, an increase of more\n                    than 2.5x versus 1Q 2022.\u201d (SAC \u00b6 62.)\n\n                \u2022   During Eos\u2019 May 10, 2023 earnings call discussing the\n                    Company\u2019s fiscal first quarter results, Defendant Mastrangelo\n                    stated that \u201cWe booked a large order for $87 million, nearly $87\n                    million, and that brought our backlog up to $535 million with\n                    \u2013 representing 2.2 gigawatt hours of power.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 63.)\n\n                \u2022   During that same call, Defendant Mastrangelo also stated \u201cWe\n                    work through those. And when you think about the timing of\n                    LOI to firm commitment, you're working through various\n                    different aspects on commercial terms, permitting, land rights\n                    and interconnections to be able to get to a firm commitment\n                    that then goes into our backlog, which, as I stated earlier,\n                    stands at $535 million, up $71 million versus fourth quarter.\u201d\n                    (Id.)\n\n Each of these statements relates to the Company\u2019s backlog. Plaintiff asserts that these statements\n\n were materially false or misleading because Defendants failed to disclose (1) that Bridgelink\n\n Power, Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 parent company, defaulted on a secured loan facility and was\n\n embroiled in litigation with the lender to seize the parent\u2019s assets; (2) that the foregoing threatened\n\n Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 commitment and ability to purchase Eos products; (3) that, as a result,\n\n there was a material risk to Eos\u2019 backlog; and (4) that, as such, there was a material undisclosed\n\n risk to Eos\u2019 business, operations, and prospects. (Id. \u00b6 64.) Defendants argue that Eos was not\n\n required to comment on its counterparty\u2019s financial status, pending legal proceedings, or likelihood\n\n of honoring future contractual commitments. (Def. Br. at 16.) Defendants assert that making such\n\n disclosures would amount to speculation about future performance that would run afoul of the\n\n premise that there is no duty to speculate. (Id.)\n\n        Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not create an affirmative duty to disclose all material\n\n information. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 44 (2011). However, disclosure\n\n may be required in certain circumstances. \u201cA duty to disclose under federal securities laws\n\n\n\n\n                                                     10\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH                  Document 38           Filed 11/08/24          Page 11 of 13 PageID:\n                                                   723\n\n\n\n may arise when a statute requires disclosure, insider trading occurs, or there is an inaccurate,\n\n incomplete, or misleading prior disclosure.\u201d City of Edinburgh Council v. Pfizer, Inc., 754 F.3d\n\n 159, 173-74 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 285-86 (3d Cir. 2000)).\n\n Specifically, \u201c[d]isclosure is required . . . only when necessary \u2018to make . . . statements made, in\n\n the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.\u2019\u201d Matrixx, 563 U.S.\n\n at 44 (quoting 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5(b)). 2 Plaintiff does not allege that Eos had a statutory duty to\n\n disclose or that insider trading occurred. Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the above statements\n\n regarding Eos\u2019 backlog were misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that the parent\n\n company of its largest customer was embroiled in litigation and experienced financial woes. (SAC\n\n \u00b6 64.) Plaintiff asserts that the parent company\u2019s issues could affect the subsidiary, such that the\n\n subsidiary could be unable to fulfill its contractual obligations to Eos. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that\n\n the subsidiary\u2019s potential inability to fulfill its contractual obligations was a material risk to Eos\u2019\n\n backlog that Eos should have disclosed. (Id.)\n\n          When an outcome or risk is merely speculative, no duty to disclose arises. See, e.g.,\n\n Williams v. Globus Med, Inc., 869 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding that a company did not\n\n have a duty to disclose a risk that had not \u201cactually materialized\u201d at the time of the allegedly\n\n misleading prior disclosure); Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 286 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that\n\n when \u201cthreat of product liability exposure was purely speculative\u201d there was no duty to disclose\n\n such exposure); Laasko v. Endo Int'l, PLC, No. 20-07536, 2022 WL 3444038, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug.\n\n 17, 2022) (\u201cPlaintiffs cannot claim that Defendants had a duty to disclose additional details\n\n associated with the risks of opioid-related litigation and liability where Defendants\u2019 risks were\n\n\n\n          2\n            Indeed, \u201ccompanies can control what they have to disclose under these provisions by controlling what they\n say to the market.\u201d Matrixx, 563 U.S. at 45. \u201cSilence, absent a duty to disclose, is not misleading under Rule 10b-5.\u201d\n City of Edinburgh Council, 754 F.3d at 174 (quoting Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 239 n.17 (1988)).\n\n\n                                                          11\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH                  Document 38           Filed 11/08/24         Page 12 of 13 PageID:\n                                                   724\n\n\n\n merely speculative.\u201d); In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Sec. Litig., No. 16-3338, 2017 WL\n\n 3278930, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017) (\u201cWhere an outcome is merely speculative, the duty to\n\n disclose does not attach.\u201d). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 ability to purchase\n\n Eos products was threatened by the financial and legal issues of its parent company, rendering Eos\u2019\n\n statements about its backlog misleading. (SAC \u00b6 64.) However, Plaintiff has failed to establish that\n\n this alleged threat to Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 ability to purchase Eos products materialized at the\n\n time the backlog-related statements were made on May 9, 2023 and May 10, 2023 such that the\n\n statements were misleading. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish a material misstatement or\n\n omission, and Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice. 4\n\n         B. Count 2: Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act Against the Individual\n\n              Defendants\n\n         In Count 2, Plaintiff alleges individual Defendants Joseph Mastrangelo and Nathan\n\n Kroeker violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. (SAC \u00b6\u00b6 100-03.) Section 20(a) of the\n\n Exchange Act provides:\n\n                  Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable\n                  under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation\n                  thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the\n                  same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such\n                  controlled person is liable . . . unless the controlling person acted in\n                  good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts\n                  constituting the violation or cause of action.\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78t(a). Liability under Section 20(a) \u201cis derivative of an underlying violation of\n\n Section 10(b) by the controlled person.\u201d Rahman v. Kid Brands, Inc., 736 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir.\n\n\n           3\n              Plaintiff\u2019s SAC likewise does not establish that Bridgelink Commodities, to date, has failed to meet its\n contractual obligations with Eos. And Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that at the time Defendants made the\n statements on May 9, 2023 and May 10, 2023, Defendants knew of Bridgelink Commodities\u2019 potential inability to\n satisfy its contractual obligations as a result of its parent company\u2019s legal and financial issues.\n           4\n             Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff\u2019s claim for failure to establish material misstatement or omission,\n the Court declines to address the other bases for dismissal proposed by Defendants.\n\n\n                                                         12\n\fCase 2:23-cv-04113-JKS-MAH           Document 38        Filed 11/08/24     Page 13 of 13 PageID:\n                                            725\n\n\n\n 2013) (quoting Institutional Invs. Grp. v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 252 (3d Cir. 2009)). \u201cThus,\n\n for a controlling person to be liable, the person over whom control was exercised must have\n\n committed a primary violation of the securities laws.\u201d In re Intelligroup Sec. Litig., 527 F. Supp.\n\n 2d 262, 280 (D.N.J. 2007) (citations omitted). Because the Section 10(b) claim is dismissed for\n\n failure to state a claim, Plaintiff\u2019s Section 20(a) claim (Count 2) is also dismissed without\n\n prejudice.\n\n IV.    CONCLUSION\n\n        For the reasons stated above, Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss (ECF 26) is GRANTED.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate order\n\n follows.\n\n\n\n                                                                     /s/ Jamel K. Semper      .\n                                                                     HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER\n                                                                     United States District Judge\n\n Orig: Clerk\n cc:   Michael A. Hammer, U.S.M.J.\n       Parties\n\n\n\n\n                                                 13\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-12-21T03:06:54.317346-08:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119021901627","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-11-08T14:06:18.602113-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.598932-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-08","time_filed":"16:53:26","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":127,"description":"OPINION. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 11/8/2024. (sm) Modified on 11/22/2024 (sm). (Entered: 11/08/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/407664071/","id":407664071,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/419422939/","id":419422939,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/39/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-11-08T14:06:18.139198-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.665797-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119021901643","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-11-08T14:06:18.125088-08:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.648122-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-08","time_filed":"16:56:22","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-08.002","pacer_sequence_number":129,"description":"ORDER granting 26 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is Dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff shall have 45 days to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 11/8/2024. (sm) Modified on 11/21/2024 (tf, ). (Entered: 11/08/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825604/","id":403825604,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117263/","id":414117263,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.537541-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.578269-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.528440-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.557997-08:00","date_filed":"2024-06-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-24.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer: Scheduling Conference held on 6/24/2024. (jqb, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825603/","id":403825603,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117262/","id":414117262,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/37/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.515342-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.542333-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.497660-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.520679-08:00","date_filed":"2024-06-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: As discussed at the Initial Scheduling Conference on June 24, 2024, and agreed upon by all parties, discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, consistent with 15 U.S.C. secs. 77z-1(b)(1) and 78u-4(b)(3)(B) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Within seven days of a decision on the motion to dismiss, if any claims remain, the parties shall so notify the Undersigned for purposes of convening a conference and setting discovery deadlines. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/24/2024. (Hammer, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825602/","id":403825602,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117261/","id":414117261,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/36/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.482983-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.502210-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.466758-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.485321-08:00","date_filed":"2024-06-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: On or before 6/19/2024, Plaintiff's counsel shall mail a tabbed courtesy copy of the Second Amended Complaint 25 to the Undersigned. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/17/2024. (jqb, ) (Entered: 06/17/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825601/","id":403825601,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117260/","id":414117260,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/35/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.452652-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.467289-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.437140-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.448575-08:00","date_filed":"2024-06-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: DIAL-IN INFORMATION CHANGE ONLY! The Rule 16 Conference will proceed as scheduled on June 24, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall dial 1-888-684-8852 and enter access code 1456817# to join the call. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/4/24. (tad) (Entered: 06/04/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825600/","id":403825600,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117259/","id":414117259,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/34/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.422993-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.430177-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.408670-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.410002-08:00","date_filed":"2024-05-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendant's May 23, 2024 request to adjourn the Rule 16 conference in view of the pending motion to dismiss this PSLRA case. The conference will proceed as scheduled unless the Court advises otherwise. However, counsel are not required to file a joint discovery plan. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 5/24/2024. (Hammer, Michael) (Entered: 05/24/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825599/","id":403825599,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117258/","id":414117258,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.312614-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.309428-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.303715-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.291098-08:00","date_filed":"2024-05-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-16.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pro Hac Vice counsel, CASEY E. SADLER, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (adc, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825598/","id":403825598,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117257/","id":414117257,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/28/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.183776-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.146546-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.168811-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.126117-08:00","date_filed":"2024-05-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER, administratively terminating (ECF No. 19 ) Motion to Dismiss: In light of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25 ), Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ([ECF No. 19]) is administratively terminated as MOOT. Defendants' most recent Motion to Dismiss [ECF 26] will remain on the docket. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 5/7/2024. (sms) (Entered: 05/07/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825597/","id":403825597,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117256/","id":414117256,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.107233-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.072441-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:28.096149-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:34.055573-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-04.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set Deadlines as to 26 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Motion set for 6/3/2024 before Judge Jamel K. Semper. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk's Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (dam)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825596/","id":403825596,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117255/","id":414117255,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/24/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.626940-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.934637-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.607319-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.915584-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: In light of counsel's request 23, the Telephone Scheduling Conference on 4/12/2024 is adjourned to 6/24/2024 at 11:00 a.m. The parties will dial 973-437-5535 and access code 961950965# to join the conference. The parties shall file a joint discovery plan by 6/20/2024. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 3/4/2024. (jqb, ) (Entered: 03/04/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825595/","id":403825595,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117254/","id":414117254,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/22/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.538911-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.848610-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.517670-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.829505-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 4/12/2024 at 2:00 p.m. The parties will dial 973-437-5535 and access code 961950965# to join the conference. The parties shall file a joint discovery plan by 4/10/2024. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 2/27/2024. (jqb, ) (Entered: 02/27/2024)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825594/","id":403825594,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117253/","id":414117253,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.371395-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.712936-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.353575-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.689745-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set Deadlines as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint. Motion set for 3/18/2024 before Judge Jamel K. Semper. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk's Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (dam)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/403825593/","id":403825593,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414117252/","id":414117252,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/67656350/15/houck-v-eos-energy-enterprises-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.102837-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.496691-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-01T00:11:27.083687-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-03T18:58:33.476664-08:00","date_filed":"2023-12-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-12-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Jamel K. Semper for all further proceedings. Judge Julien Xavier Neals no longer assigned to case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/28/2023. (ps) (Entered: 12/28/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/394892469/","id":394892469,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/403994188/","id":403994188,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-27T09:39:23.854598-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-27T09:39:23.858437-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-27T09:39:23.844518-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-27T09:39:23.844533-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-27","time_filed":"12:30:59","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/394507195/","id":394507195,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/67656350/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/403601821/","id":403601821,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-24T09:37:49.643259-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-24T09:37:49.647856-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-24T09:37:49.633864-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-24T09:37:49.633880-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-24","time_filed":"12:29:58","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=67656350&page_size=40"}