Patel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES: 15-cv-02766-VC, 15-cv-03396-BLF, and 15-cv-03715-WHO. The lead case will be 15-cv-02766-VC. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 9/28/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDWARD BLASCO,

Case No. 15-cv-02766-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 22, 27, 33, 37

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
CONSOLIDATE, APPOINTING LEAD
PLAINTIFFS, AND APPROVING LEAD
COUNSEL

12
13

EDWARD JAZLOWIECKI,

Case No. 15-cv-03396-BLF (VC)

Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
16

KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

KAMLESH PATEL,

Case No. 15-cv-03715-WHO (VC)

Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
22

KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

23
24
25

The motions to consolidate cases 15-cv-02766-VC, 15-cv-03396-BLF, and 15-cv-03715WHO are granted. The lead case will be 15-cv-02766-VC.

26

Under the PSLRA, a court presumes that the lead plaintiff in a securities class action

27

should be the moving person or group that has the largest financial stake in the case and otherwise

28

satisfies Rule 23. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Here, the movants primarily disagree about

1

the class period the Court should use to determine who has the largest financial stake. Two

2

potential lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees' Retirement System and Asbestos Workers

3

Philadelphia Pension Fund, urge the Court to use the class period alleged in the Blasco Complaint

4

– February 4, 2015 through May 14, 2015. Movants Jessica Lee, Alan Schlussel, and Lawrence E.

5

Wilder assert that the Court should use the longer class period alleged in the Patel Complaint –

6

November 19, 2014 through August 5, 2015. Reviewing the complaints at this early stage of the

7

case, the Court finds that longer period alleged in the Patel Complaint is not obviously

8

implausible. In light of this longer class period, the Lee, Schlussel, and Wilder group has the

9

largest financial stake in the case and is the presumptive lead plaintiff.

10

The other two movants challenge the appointment of the Lee, Schlussel, and Wilder group

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

on various other grounds, but their papers and their arguments at the motion hearing fail to rebut

12

the presumption that the Lee, Schlussel, and Wilder group is the most adequate lead plaintiff.

13

The Court appoints the Lee, Schlussel, and Wilder group lead plaintiff and approves

14

Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as co-lead counsel. The parties

15

should submit a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and defendants'

16

response within 7 days of this order.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2