Johnson et al v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc. et al
Filing
30
AMENDED ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND APPOINTING OCZ TECHNOLOGY GROUP AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/4/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
SHANE A. JOHNSON et al. Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
12
13
AMENDED
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
AND APPOINTING OCZ
TECHNOLOGY GROUP AS LEAD
PLAINTIFF
Plaintiffs,
v.
14
15
16
17
No. CV 12-05265 RS
OCZ TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
18
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
Nine related securities class action lawsuits are currently pending. The actions are
22
brought on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of OCZ
23
Technology Group, Inc. (“OCZ”) between July 10, 2012 and October 11, 2012, inclusive (“the
24
Class Period”). The class seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
25
(“Exchange Act”) for failing to disclose and/or materially misleading the investing public
26
concerning customer incentive programs that negatively impacted revenues. After four partial
27
corrective disclosures, OCZ stock fell from $5.36 per share to $1.47 per share.
28
CV 12-05265 RS
ORDER
Four different plaintiffs timely moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
2
their respective selections of counsel. Two of those plaintiffs have since withdrawn their
3
motions. A third has conceded it does not have the largest financial interest, but remains ready
4
and willing to serve should the remaining plaintiff not meet the requirements of Rule 23. Thus
5
only one motion for appointment remains to be considered. In conjunction with their motions for
6
appointment as lead plaintiff, plaintiffs have also filed motions for consolidation. Pursuant to
7
Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter has been taken under submission and decided without oral
8
argument.
II.
9
LEGAL STANDARD
10
A. Consolidation
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the court discretion to
12
consolidate “actions involving a common question of law or fact.” The Private Securities
13
Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) requires that, when “more than one action on behalf of a class
14
asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this title has been filed, and any
15
party has sought to consolidate those actions” the court shall not make a determination of lead
16
plaintiff until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.
17
B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
18
The PSLRA requires the court to appoint as lead plaintiff “the member or members of the
19
purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be the most capable of adequately
20
representing the interests of the class members.” 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(I); Hodges v.
21
Akeena Solar, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 528, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2009). The Act creates a rebuttable
22
presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the “person or group of persons” that (i) either
23
filed the complaint or made a motion in response to the published notice; (ii) in the determination
24
of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought; and (iii) otherwise satisfies the
25
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii).
26
The Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-part test to determine which plaintiff meets these
27
criteria. First, the court must determine whether the first plaintiff to file an action issued a notice
28
12-CV-05265 RS
ORDER
2
publicizing the pendency of the action. Id. at 729 (citing 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)). Second,
2
the court must decide which plaintiff has the most to gain financially from the lawsuit, and
3
whether this plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
4
Procedure. Id. at 730. Finally, the court must consider competing plaintiffs’ attempts to rebut the
5
presumptive plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6
Id. Rule 23 provides that a party may serve as a class representative if the claims or defenses of
7
the representative parties are typical of claims or defenses of the class and the representative
8
parties fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a).
9
As long as the plaintiff with the largest losses satisfies the typicality and adequacy
10
requirements, he is entitled to lead plaintiff status. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
2002). The district court may not overcome this statutory presumption, even if it thinks a
12
different plaintiff would do a better job. Id. Nor may the district court consider the relative
13
merits of the plaintiffs seeking lead status. Id. Rather, the process is sequential, starting with the
14
potential plaintiff with the greatest financial interest. Id.
15
III.
DISCUSSION
16
A. Consolidation of Cases
17
The following actions have been related:
18
12-05288; 12-05296; 12-05329; 12-05345; 12-05381;
19
12-05423; 12-05476; 12-05684.
20
Together this group of cases satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a).
21
Additionally, the parties in the actions are substantially the same. Accordingly, for pre-trial
22
purposes, the actions are consolidated into In re OCZ Technology Group, Inc. Securities
23
Litigation., C 12-05265. All filings hereafter shall be made exclusively in Case No. C 12-
24
05265. The Clerk shall close the files of the other cases listed above. Plaintiff shall file a
25
consolidated class action complaint.
26
B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
27
The OCZ Investor Group is comprised of Leo Jegen, Vincent M. Monnier, Shih Leng
28
12-CV-05265 RS
ORDER
3
Tan, and Len C. Villacres. The Group has made a timely motion in response to the PSLRA early
2
notice requirement. Thus, the first prong of the inquiry is satisfied. The next question is to
3
determine if the OCZ Investor Group indeed has the largest financial interest. The Group
4
suffered an alleged loss of approximately $1,083,666.93. This amount was determined by
5
calculating how many shares were acquired during the Class Period, and then determining how
6
many of those shares were held through each of the four partial disclosures. The loss calculation
7
results from comparing the purchase price with the price drop attributable to each of the four
8
partial disclosures, as contemplated in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347
9
(2005). No plaintiff challenges this calculation, or that it results in the largest investor interest.
10
The final factor focuses on whether the OCZ Investor Group satisfies the requirements of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
Rule 23 for typicality and adequacy. The Group purchased OCZ securities and allegedly
12
suffered damages resulting from defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions. The Group’s
13
claims and injuries thus “arise from the same conduct from which the other class members’
14
claims and injuries arise.” In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 50
15
(S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also In re Chase Bank United States, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 286, 292 (N.D. Cal.
16
2011). The Group further declares it is not subject to any unique or special defenses. The OCZ
17
Investor Group therefore meets the typicality requirement of Rule 23 because its claims are the
18
same as the claims of all other class members. A plaintiff meets the adequacy requirement if its
19
interests are aligned with those of other members of the Class and he or she is able to prosecute
20
the action vigorously through qualified counsel. See Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc.,
21
582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978). The OCZ Investor Group maintains it has a compelling
22
interest in resolving this action due to the large financial losses suffered by the members of the
23
Group. It further declares it has chosen competent counsel to represent the class in this action.
24
In support of this declaration, it has submitted documents touting the expertise of its selected
25
counsel. As a result, the OCZ Investor Group adequately represents the class.
26
27
The OCZ Investor Group consists of four sophisticated investors. Small, cohesive groups
similar to the OCZ Investor Group are routinely appointed as Lead Plaintiff in securities actions
28
12-CV-05265 RS
ORDER
4
when they have shown their ability to manage the litigation effectively in the interests of the
2
class without undue influence of counsel. See, e.g., In re Versata, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2001 WL
3
34012374, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2001). In support of its motion for appointment as lead
4
plaintiff, the OCZ Investor Group has submitted declarations from each of the four individuals
5
comprising the Group professing the readiness to serve as a representative party on behalf of the
6
class. They further aver they will work together to direct and supervise the activities of counsel
7
to best vindicate the interests of all shareholders. Additionally, they have been in contact to
8
discuss how information will be shared and how the litigation will be managed on a day-to-day
9
basis. The Group has agreed that Leo Jegen will serve as the spokesperson and liaison with
10
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
counsel and the Court.
Once a lead plaintiff is chosen, that plaintiff may select its counsel, subject to approval of
12
the court. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iv). The OCZ Investor Group has selected Levi &
13
Korinsky LLP to serve as lead counsel. The Group has additionally chosen Punzalan Law to
14
serve as local counsel and Brower Piven to serve as additional counsel. These designations are
15
approved.
IV.
16
17
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the OCZ Investor Group is appointed as lead plaintiff in this
18
securities class action. Levi & Korinsky LLP will serve as lead counsel, Punzalan Law will
19
serve as local counsel, and Brower Piven will serve as additional counsel. The unopposed
20
motion to consolidate the actions listed above is granted. Plaintiff shall file a consolidated class
21
action complaint.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated: 1/4/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
12-CV-05265 RS
ORDER
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?