Lin et al v. Ecotality, Inc et al
Filing
47
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti consolidating cases, appointing Joseph W. Vale as lead plaintiff, and approving Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
11
HUA-CHEN JENNY LIN and JONATHAN
W. DIAMOND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated
12
Plaintiffs,
10
13
14
v.
ECOTALITY, INC., H. RAVI BRAR,
SUSIE HERRMAN,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos. 13-cv-3791 SC
13-cv-3849 SC
13-cv-4579 SC
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES,
APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND
APPROVING SELECTION OF LEAD
COUNSEL
INTRODUCTION
Now pending before the Court are three related actions brought
21
on behalf of the purchasers of the common stock of ECOtality, Inc.
22
Lin v. ECOtality, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-3791 SC, Cohen v. ECOtality,
23
Inc., 13-cv-3840 SC, Fleming v. Brar, 13-cv-4579 SC (collectively,
24
the "Related Cases").
25
issued false and misleading statements that artificially inflated
26
the price of ECOtality's stock, and that the stock price plummeted
27
when the truth was eventually revealed.
28
Business Wire published a notice of the pendency of these actions.
All three actions allege that Defendants
On August 15, 2013,
1
Since that time, six putative class members have moved for
2
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection as
3
lead counsel. 1
4
consolidate the Related Cases.
These individuals also move the Court to
5
CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED CASES
6
As the Related Cases involve common questions of law and fact,
7
8
the motions to consolidate are GRANTED.
The Related Cases are
9
hereby consolidated into Civil Action No. 13-cv-3791 SC for
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
pretrial proceedings before this Court.
The consolidated action
11
shall be captioned: "In re ECOtality, Inc. Securities Litigation."
12
All related actions that are subsequently filed in or transferred
13
to this District shall be consolidated into this action for
14
pretrial purposes.
15
action, absent order of the Court.
16
consolidation, or to any other provision of this Order, must file
17
an application for relief from this Order within thirty (30) days
18
after the date on which a copy of this Order is mailed to the
19
party's counsel.
20
rights of any party to apply for severance of any claim or action,
21
for good cause shown.
This Order shall apply to every such related
A party that objects to such
This Order is entered without prejudice to the
22
APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF
23
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) states
24
25
that district courts "shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or
26
members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines
27
28
1
ECF Nos. 17 ("Sarnoff Mot."), 18 ("Hoffman Mot."), 22 ("Marcha
Mot."), 24 ("Dixon Mot."), 27 ("Bishop Mot."), 29 ("Vale Mot.").
2
1
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of
2
class members."
3
sets forth a three-step procedure for identifying a lead plaintiff
4
using this standard.
5
pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
6
purported class period, along with notice that any class member may
7
move to serve as lead plaintiff within sixty days.
8
4(a)(3)(A).
9
criteria and the pending motions were timely filed.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).
The PSLRA
The first step consists of publicizing the
Id. § 78u-
The notice published in Business Wire satisfies these
In step two, the district court adopts the presumption that
11
the most adequate plaintiff is the person who has "the largest
12
financial interest in the relief sought by the class," and who
13
otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
14
Procedure 23.
15
has the largest financial stake in this litigation since his
16
claimed losses are larger than the losses claimed by the other
17
class members moving to be appointed lead plaintiff.
18
also finds that Mr. Vale otherwise satisfies the typicality and
19
adequacy requirements of Rule 23.
Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).
Here, Joseph W. Vale
The Court
20
"The third step of the process is to give other plaintiffs an
21
opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that
22
it satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements."
23
re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 15 U.S.C. §
24
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)).
25
challenged Mr. Vale on this issue.
26
that step three has also been met.
27
28
In
None of the other plaintiffs have
Accordingly, the Court finds
Therefore, the Court appoints Joseph W. Vale as the lead
plaintiff in this action.
3
SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
1
2
With respect to the selection of lead counsel, the PLSRA
3
provides: "The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the
4
approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the
5
class."
6
made a reasonable choice of counsel, the district court should
7
generally defer to that choice."
8
703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009).
9
of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") to represent
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).
"If the lead plaintiff has
Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 586 F.3d
Here, Mr. Vale has chosen the law firm
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the proposed class.
As Robbins Geller has been appointed lead
11
counsel in hundreds of other securities class actions, the Court
12
finds Mr. Vale's choice reasonable.
13
selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel for the proposed class
14
is hereby APPROVED.
Accordingly, Mr. Vale's
15
16
CONCLUSION
17
For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) consolidates the
18
Related Actions, (2) appoints Joseph W. Vale as lead plaintiff in
19
this consolidated action, and (3) approves Mr. Vale's selection of
20
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the proposed
21
class.
22
filed by Paul Sarnoff, Marvin Hoffman, Edgar D. Marcha, George
23
Dixon III, and Thomas J. Bishop are DENIED.
The motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: December 13, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?