context: . Defendants also premise their motion to dismiss on Rule 9(b), but the PSLRA "super-cedes and embodies the standards of Rule 9(b)."
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 299 F.3d 735, 742
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he investors technically do not need to meet the requirements of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b
citation_a.sentence: Cf. In re Navarre Corp. Sec. Litig., 299 F.3d 735, 742 (8th Cir.2002) ("[T]he investors technically do not need to meet the requirements of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the PSLRA, as the PSLRA supersedes reliance on 9(b) in securities fraud cases and embodies the standards of 9(b).”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: "The PSLRA requirements are more rigorous than those under Rule 9(b
citation_b.sentence: In re Nash Finch Co. Sec. Litig., 502 F.Supp.2d 861, 871 n. 5 (D.Minn.2007). Accord Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 874 n. 2 (8th Cir.2010) (“The PSLRA requirements are more rigorous than those under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).