tending to undermine the statements therein. B. Scienter The PSLRA requires a complaint to “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,” or scienter. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). The required state of mind is either that the defendant acted intentionally or with “deliberate recklessness.” Daou Sys., 411 F.3d at 1014-15. In a securities claim under § 10(b), “recklessness only satisfies scienter” when it “reflects some degree of intentional or conscious misconduct.” In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 977 (9th Cir. 1999); see also DSAM Global Value Fund v. Altris Software, Inc., 288 F.3d 385, 389 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Significantly, “where the
recognizing that the defense must be given the opportunity to crossexamine a witness and explore any motive to falsely testify in order to assist government holding that in order to allege a strong inference of deliberate recklessness a plaintiff must state facts that come closer to demonstrating intent as opposed to mere motive and opportunity holding that a plaintiff must allege facts that distinguish him from the typical person the ban applies to in order to state an as applied claim holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction