Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc. et al

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying (32) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denying (32) Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying (34) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denying (34) Motion to Consolidate Cases; granting (36) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denying (15) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denying (15) Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying (19) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denyin g (22) Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying (27) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; denying (27) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 3:15-cv-00084-JD; terminating (14) Stipulation; terminating (18) Stipulation in case 3:15-cv-00184-JD; terminating (9) Stipulation in case 3:15-cv-00200-JD (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

IN RE INVENSENSE, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION.

9

Case No. 15-cv-00084-JD
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES,
APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND
LEAD COUNSEL, AND SETTING CASE
SCHEDULE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
The Court issues these orders in this securities class action.

12
13
14

I.

CONSOLIDATION
The cases McMillan v. InvenSense (15-cv-84), Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension

15

Fund v. InvenSense (15-cv-249) and Davis v. InvenSense (15-cv-425) are consolidated for all

16

purposes including trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

17
18
19
20

The cases are consolidated into the lowest-numbered case, 15-cv-84, which will be recaptioned In re InvenSense, Inc. Securities Litigation. The other two cases will be closed.
II. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
Putative class members filed seven competing motions seeking appointment as lead

21

plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 17 U.S.C. § 78u-

22

4(a)(3)(B)(i). Dkt. Nos. 15, 19, 22, 27, 32, 34 and 36. The movants then filed a stipulation,

23

Dkt. No. 54, that resolved those motions in favor of recommending the Vossen Group (i.e.,

24

Gregory Vossen, Ed Farley and Albert DiRienzo) as the “most adequate plaintiff” under the

25

PSLRA, and the Court appoints the Vossen Group as lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities

26

class action.

27
28

Pursuant to the Vossen Group’s request, and as further stipulated to by the movants, the
Court appoints the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to represent the class as lead

1

counsel, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court sees no reason to disagree with the

2

lead plaintiff’s proposal.

3

Consequently, the Vossen Group’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval

4

of selection of counsel, Dkt. No. 36, is granted, and the other motions, Dkt. Nos. 15, 19, 22, 27,

5

32, and 34 are denied, without prejudice to renewal in the event the Vossen Group should ever

6

become unwilling or unable to serve as lead plaintiff.

7

III. CASE SCHEDULE
Lead plaintiff is ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint 30 days from the date of

9

this order. Defendants are to respond to the complaint within 30 days thereafter. If defendants file

10

a motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s response is due in 30 days, and any reply is due in 21 days. These

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

dates are firm and will not be continued. A hearing is to be noticed no earlier than 21 days after

12

the close of briefing.

13

The consolidated complaint will be the operative complaint and supersede all other

14

complaints filed in the underlying actions that were consolidated into this case. Defendants need

15

not respond to those prior complaints.

16

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the sake of

17

clarity and efficient case management, plaintiff is directed to set out in chart form its securities

18

fraud allegations under the following headings on a numbered, statement-by-statement basis:

19

(1) the speaker(s), date(s), and medium; (2) the false and misleading statements; (3) the reasons

20

why the statements were false and misleading when made; and (4) the facts giving rise to a strong

21

inference of scienter. An exemplar can be found at Docket Number 111 in In re Mellanox

22

Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-4909. The chart may be attached to or

23

contained in the consolidated complaint, but in any event will be deemed to be a part of the

24

complaint.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 23, 2015
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

27
28
2