West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Hasbro, Inc. — Entry #54

Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB       Document 54     Filed 04/10/26   Page 1 of 11


                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS’
PENSION FUND and CITY OF MIAMI
GENERAL EMPLOYEES’ & SANITATION
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT TRUST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
                                                 Case No. 24-cv-08633-VSB
                          Plaintiffs,

      v.

HASBRO, INC., CHRISTIAN COCKS, AND
CYNTHIA WILLIAMS,

                          Defendants.


                  PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
                      REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE


          Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB                        Document 54               Filed 04/10/26              Page 2 of 11


                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                     Page

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1

I.        EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTS MAY NOT BE NOTICED FOR THEIR TRUTH
          OR TO DISPUTE THE COMPLAINT’S WELL-PLED ALLEGATIONS .......................2

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................5


                                                                     i


         Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB                        Document 54               Filed 04/10/26              Page 3 of 11


                                               TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

                                                                                                                                Page(s)

Cases

Acticon AG v. China N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.,
    692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012).....................................................................................................3, 4

In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
    693 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)........................................................................................1

In re Amylin Pharms., Inc., Sec. Litig.,
    2002 WL 31520051 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002) ..........................................................................3

Buhrke Family Revocable Trust v. U.S. Bancorp,
   726 F. Supp. 3d 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)........................................................................................4

Chalmers v. City of New York,
   2021 WL 4226181 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2021) ...........................................................................2

Duval v. Albano,
   2017 WL 3053157 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2017) .............................................................................2

In re FuBoTV Inc. Sec. Litig.,
    2024 WL 1330001 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024) ...........................................................................2

Global Network Comm’ns, Inc. v. City of New York,
   458 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................................2

Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.,
   463 F. Supp. 3d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)........................................................................................5

Int’l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass’n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,
     146 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1998)........................................................................................................2

Lee v. Springer Nature Am., Inc.,
   769 F. Supp. 3d 234 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)........................................................................................5

In re Lottery.com, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
    715 F. Supp. 3d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)........................................................................................5

Roth v. Jennings,
   489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................1, 2

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
    551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................1


                                                                    ii


         Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB                        Document 54               Filed 04/10/26              Page 4 of 11


Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(6).................................................................................................................1, 5


                                                                    iii


       Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB           Document 54        Filed 04/10/26      Page 5 of 11


       Lead Plaintiffs West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund and City of Miami General

Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust (together, “Plaintiffs”) submit this

opposition to Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, see ECF Nos. 51-52 (the “Request for Judicial

Notice” or “RJN”).1

                                         INTRODUCTION

       Defendants attached to their Motion 17 exhibits that span 491 pages. In footnotes to the

Motion, Defendants ask the Court to either take judicial notice of them or consider them incorporated

by reference into the Complaint. See Mot. 1-9; Exs. A-Q. While certain of these materials may be

appropriate for judicial notice or incorporation by reference, Defendants improperly seek to

introduce them for the truth of the matters they assert. Specifically, Defendants urge the Court to use

these materials to disregard and contradict the Complaint’s well-pled allegations in favor of

Defendants’ self-serving “Statement of Facts” and preferred inferences—an approach that is flatly

prohibited at the pleading stage.

                                           ARGUMENT

       In considering “a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a § 10(b) action, courts must … accept all

factual allegations in the complaint as true,” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.

308, 322 (2007), and must “construe[] all alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.”

In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 693 F. Supp. 2d 241, 247-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Defendants’

Request for Judicial Notice seeks to circumvent these fundamental principles.

       Courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly stressed strict limits to the doctrines Defendants

invoke. See Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007). At the pleading stage, documents


1
 Defendants submitted the RJN through their Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 51 (“Motion”), and the
supporting Declaration of Scott D. Musoff, ECF No. 52 (“Decl.”), and accompanying exhibits.
References to “Mot. __” are to Defendants’ Motion, references to “Ex. __” are to the exhibits to the
Decl., and references to “¶__” are to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 47 (“Compl.”). Unless
otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and all internal quotations are omitted.

                                                  1


       Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB             Document 54      Filed 04/10/26      Page 6 of 11


incorporated by reference are considered “only to determine what the documents stated, and not to

prove the truth of their contents.” Id. (emphasis in original). Similarly, while a court may take

judicial notice of documents extrinsic to the Complaint, it may “not” do so “for the truth of the

matters asserted within them.” In re FuBoTV Inc. Sec. Litig., 2024 WL 1330001, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 28, 2024); see also Chalmers v. City of New York, 2021 WL 4226181, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.

16, 2021) (“declin[ing] to take judicial notice” of documents offered “for the truth of the matters

asserted”).

       Thus, while SEC filings and similar documents may be judicially noticed “to establish their

existence,” they cannot be accepted “to provide the reasoned basis for [a] conclusion” that

contradicts the Complaint’s allegations. Global Network Comm’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458

F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, “[b]ecause the effect of judicial notice is to deprive a party of

the opportunity to use rebuttal evidence, cross-examination, and argument to attack contrary

evidence, caution must be used in determining that a fact is” properly subject to judicial notice. Int’l

Star Class Yacht Racing Ass’n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Every

reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved promptly in the negative.”). Defendants ignore

these well-established limitations.

I.     EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTS MAY NOT BE NOTICED FOR THEIR TRUTH OR
       TO DISPUTE THE COMPLAINT’S WELL-PLED ALLEGATIONS

       The Complaint contains extensive factual allegations detailing Defendants’ false and

misleading statements and the harm they caused investors. “Defendants respond by introducing

facts”—through their 17 exhibits—“that they believe undermine Plaintiff[s’] evidence.” Duval v.

Albano, 2017 WL 3053157, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2017). But “the Court cannot draw the

inferences that Defendants wish that it would at this stage, because the Court is obligated to draw all

reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (declining to “reason from … materials” “even if the

Court took judicial notice of the[m]”).

                                                   2


       Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB           Document 54        Filed 04/10/26      Page 7 of 11


       Post-Class Period stock price movements. The Complaint amply alleges that investors

suffered losses when the revelation of Defendants’ false and misleading statements, including

through a Bank of America analyst report (the “BofA Report”), caused Hasbro’s stock price to

decline. ¶¶208-21. Following the three corrective disclosures, which together slashed Hasbro’s

market capitalization by over $2.7 billion, analysts connected the loss in shareholder value to

Defendants’ misstatements. ¶¶114-31, 138-141.

       Defendants attempt to dispute these well-pled facts by asking the Court to take judicial notice

of a chart showing Hasbro’s stock price for two years after the Class Period (Ex. N), as well as a

document purporting to list Magic revenues after the Class Period (Ex. M). According to Defendants,

the fact that Hasbro’s stock price “recovered” two years after the Class Period and that Magic

revenues recovered somehow “prove[s] the [BofA] Report wrong.” Mot. 8-9.

       Defendants’ tactic is legally improper, factually wrong, and should be rejected. Defendants’

explanations for the recovery of Hasbro’s stock price and Magic’s revenue after the Class Period

“raise[] factual questions not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.” Acticon AG v. China

N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 692 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2012); see also In re Amylin Pharms., Inc.,

Sec. Litig., 2002 WL 31520051, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002) (“Amylin’s historical stock price,

introduced to show that the price rose after the close of the class period, is irrelevant to the motion

to dismiss.”). Plaintiffs vigorously dispute Defendants’ contention that these purported post-Class

Period facts demonstrate that the BofA Report was “wrong.” Indeed, if anything, Defendants’ post-

Class Period performance supports the Complaint’s allegations. Its stock price rebounded only

because Hasbro cut back its parachute strategy following the end of the Class Period, mitigating

secondary market card devaluation (see ¶133), with Williams resigning from the Company.

Additionally, Defendants’ argument ignores the post-Class Period performance of Hasbro’s other

sources of revenue—including its Consumer Products and Magic licensing businesses. Simply put,


                                                  3


       Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB           Document 54        Filed 04/10/26      Page 8 of 11


Defendants’ arguments about the reasons for its post-Class Period stock price performance and

Magic revenue are precisely the type of factual disputes that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.

        Moreover, the Second Circuit has squarely held that stock price “recovery” after the Class

Period “does not negate the inference that [the plaintiff] has suffered an economic loss.” Acticon,

692 F.3d at 41. Defendants’ assertion that Hasbro’s stock price had recovered by approximately two

years after the end of the Class Period (Mot. 9) thus does nothing to absolve Defendants of liability

for the losses investors suffered—and provides no consolation to investors who sold their stock

before then.

        Defendants’ contradictory, self-serving “Statement of Facts.” The Complaint contains

extensive factual allegations detailing how (i) Hasbro did not print new sets “to meet demand,” but

rather pursuant to a “parachute” strategy of releasing sets regardless of demand to prop up Hasbro’s

other divisions; (ii) Hasbro did overprint Magic, harming the brand and leaving Hasbro with excess

inventory; (iii) the Magic 30th Set was not “out of stock,” but rather Defendants prematurely stopped

the failed sale to falsely project success; (iv) Magic’s growth was not pursuant to a demand-driven

“segmentation” strategy, but rather its supply-led parachute strategy; and (v) Wizards inventory was

not elevated because of “upcoming” releases, but rather due to old, overprinted Magic sets remaining

unsold. ¶¶72-113, 137.

        Defendants attempt (Mot. 4-9) to contradict these allegations and introduce facts outside the

pleadings in a “Statement of Facts” section peppered with references to extrinsic documents, which

they ask the Court to notice or consider incorporated by reference. Certain of these documents are

SEC filings, but “[w]hile the Court may take judicial notice of SEC filings, it cannot do so to

establish the truth of the matters asserted therein.” Buhrke Family Revocable Trust v. U.S. Bancorp,

726 F. Supp. 3d 315, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (declining to use facts asserted in SEC filings in analysis

of plaintiff’s claims).


                                                  4


       Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB           Document 54        Filed 04/10/26      Page 9 of 11


       More broadly, even if the Court “takes judicial notice of” any of “these documents, their

purposes at the motion-to-dismiss stage are limited.” Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 463 F. Supp.

3d 453, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see In re Lottery.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 715 F. Supp. 3d 506, 560 n.13

(S.D.N.Y. 2024) (“Just because the document itself is susceptible to judicial notice does not mean

that every assertion of fact within that document is judicially noticeable for its truth.”). Defendants

thus cannot offer extrinsic documents for their truth to contradict the Complaint’s well-pled

allegations. “A contrary rule would permit the improper transformation of the Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry

into a summary-judgment proceeding … featuring a bespoke factual record, tailor-made to suit the

needs of defendants,” and “[s]uch undermining of the usual pleading burdens is not the purpose of

judicial notice.” Lee v. Springer Nature Am., Inc., 769 F. Supp. 3d 234, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reject Defendants’

improper attempt to misuse the judicial notice and incorporation by reference doctrines to interject

their own self-serving version of the “facts” and impermissibly resolve factual disputes at the

pleading stage.


 Dated: April 10, 2026                       Respectfully submitted,

                                             By: /s/ Jonathan D. Uslaner

                                             BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
                                              & GROSSMANN LLP
                                             Jonathan D. Uslaner
                                             2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
                                             Los Angeles, CA 90067
                                             Telephone: (310) 819-3481
                                             jonathanu@blbglaw.com

                                             BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
                                             & GROSSMANN LLP
                                             Hannah Ross
                                             Matthew S. Goldstein

                                                  5


Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB   Document 54    Filed 04/10/26     Page 10 of 11


                             1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
                             New York, NY 10020
                             Telephone: (212) 554-1400
                             hannah@blbglaw.com
                             matthew.goldstein@blbglaw.com

                             Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs West Palm Beach
                             Firefighters’ Pension Fund and City of Miami
                             General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’
                             Retirement Trust

                             KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN
                              & LEVINSON
                             Robert D. Klausner
                             7080 Northwest Fourth Street
                             Plantation, Florida 33317
                             Telephone: (954) 916-1202
                             Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
                             bob@robertdklausner.com

                             Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs West Palm
                             Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund and City of
                             Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation
                             Employees’ Retirement Trust


                                 6


      Case 1:24-cv-08633-VSB              Document 54      Filed 04/10/26      Page 11 of 11


                             LOCAL RULE 7.1(c) CERTIFICATION

       I, Jonathan D. Uslaner, hereby certify that this memorandum of law complies with the word-

count limitations set forth in Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York and Section 4(B) of the Court’s Individual Rules & Practices in

Civil Cases, and contains 1,439 words, exclusive of the caption, table of contents, table of authorities,

signature blocks, and this certificate.


Dated: New York, New York
       April 10, 2026
                                                                       /s/ Jonathan D. Uslaner
                                                                       Jonathan D. Uslaner


                                                   7