deny defendants ' motion to dismiss and grant the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint as requested.
E. Defendants ' Motion To Dismiss The California And Pennsylvania Securities Law Claims As Barred By Their Respective Statutes Of Limitations
Defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs ' claims under and § 1-401 of the Pennsylvania securities law and § 25401 of the California Corporate Securities Law, on the grounds that they are barred by their respective statutes of limitations. We note once again that the statute of limitations for claims under Pennsylvania's § 1-401, contained in § 1-504(a), is the earlier of four years from the misrepresentation or one year from the date the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the misrepresentation. The statute of limitations for claims under California's § 25401 is four years. Cal. Corp. Code § 25506 (West 1987 Supp.). However, both Pennsylvania and California have adopted fraudulent concealment doctrines. See, e.g., Ritter v. Theodore Pendergrass, 356 Pa. Super. 422, 514 A.2d 930, 935 n. 8 (1986); Bollinger v. National Fire Ins. Co., 25 Cal.2d 399, 406, 154 P.2d 399 (1944). We therefore deny defendants ' motions to dismiss without prejudice and, as with the federal securities claims, give the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint to include the specific information necessary for this Court to determine when they learned of the defendants ' alleged misrepresentations.
AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 1987, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants ' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiffs ' claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10(b)-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)-5, is DENIED without prejudice;
(2) Plaintiffs are given 30 days in which to amend their complaint to include the specific information necessary for this Court to determine whether their claim is barred under the statute of limitations, i.e. to set out the date upon which they learned of the defendants ' alleged misrepresentations;
(3) Defendants ' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), for failure to allege fraud with sufficient particularity, the claims by Lucille Robbins and David Robbins under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10(b)-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)-5, is DENIED;
(4) Plaintiffs ' cross motion to amend their complaint so as to set forth specific facts describing the manner in which Lucille Robbins and David Robbins became aware of the alleged misrepresentations is GRANTED, and they are given 30 days in which to so amend their complaint;
(5) Defendants ' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs ' pendant state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED;
(6) Defendants ' motion to dismiss the claims of the estates of Millard Cohen and Arthur Shapiro is DENIED;
(7) Plaintiffs ' cross-motion to amend their complaint so as to substitute Andrew M. Cohen and Jacob Falkenstein as plaintiffs in place of the Estate of Millard Cohen, and to substitute William Russell Shapiro and Helen Shapiro as plaintiffs in place of the Estate of Arthur Shapiro, is GRANTED;
(8) Defendants ' motion to dismiss plaintiffs ' claims under § 1-401 of the Pennsylvania securities law and § 25401 of the California corporate code, as barred by the respective state statutes of limitations, is DENIED without prejudice.