Giraudon v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. — Entry #63: -VACATED PER ECF 64 - ORDER granting 60 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Case 1:25-cv-00182-GLR         Document 63     Filed 10/16/25   Page 1 of 2


                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 ALAIN GIRAUDON, individually and              *
 on behalf of all others similarly situated,
                                               *
           Plaintiffs,
                                               *     Civil Action No. GLR-25-182
 v.
                                               *
 INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL
 PROPERTIES, INC., et al.,                     *

           Defendants.                         *
                                               ***
                                          ORDER

       Pending before the Court is Defendants Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan

Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Benjamin C. Regin, and Catherine Hastings’ Motion to

Dismiss Lead Plaintiff’s Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 60). The Motion

is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2025).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion.

       Lead Plaintiff City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System (“RRS”) filed an

Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the above-captioned action on June 23,

2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934. (Am. Compl. at 105–06, ECF No. 50).1 In response, Defendants filed the instant

Motion to Dismiss on August 22, 2025, asserting that RRS failed to state a claim that

satisfies the “heightened pleading standard” for Section 10(b) actions. (Def.’s Mem. L.


      Citations to page numbers refer to the pagination assigned by the Court’s Case
       1

Management/Electronic Files (“CM/ECF”) system.


       Case 1:25-cv-00182-GLR        Document 63       Filed 10/16/25    Page 2 of 2


Supp. Mot. Dismiss [“Mot.”] at 18–36, ECF No. 60-1).2 Under Local Rule 105.2(a), RRS’s

Opposition was due by September 5, 2025. To date, the Court has not received an

Opposition from RRS. Because the Court finds that Defendants’ unopposed Motion is

meritorious and well-founded, the Motion to Dismiss shall be granted.

       Accordingly, it is this 16th day of October, 2025, by the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, hereby:

       ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED;

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No.

50) is DISMISSED without prejudice;

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall PROVIDE a copy of this Order to

all counsel of record; and

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.


                                          ____________/s/________________
                                          George L. Russell, III
                                          Chief United States District Judge


       2
         Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint
because it is unnecessarily lengthy and difficult to parse. (Mot. at 15–18). Because RRS
sought leave of Court to file an Amended Complaint in excess of forty pages, Defendants
did not oppose that request, and the Court granted the request, (see ECF Nos. 49, 53), the
Court will not dismiss the Amended Complaint on this ground.
                                             2