Walsh v. Pattern Energy Group, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 24 Unopposed Motion of Frank Rowe Michels and Robert Kezer for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Counsel. The Court VACATES the hearing set February 14, 2017. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 TERENCE WALSH, 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 16-CV-6560 YGR ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF FRANK ROWE MICHELS AND ROBERT KEZER FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND APPROVAL OF COUNSEL PATTERN ENERGY GROUP, INC., et al., DKT NO. 15, 24 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Presently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs Frank Rowe Michels and Robert Kezer 12 to: (1) appoint Michels and Kezer as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who purchased or 13 otherwise acquired securities of Pattern Energy Group, Inc. between May 9, 2016, and November 14 4, 2016, inclusive; and (2) approving Lead Plaintiffs’ selection of Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel 15 for the Class, pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 16 78u-4(a)(3)(B) (the “Exchange Act”), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 17 of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), and Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 24.) The 18 motion was filed January 10, 2017, and is unopposed. No other party has sought to be approved as 19 lead counsel in this matter. 20 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for 21 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Approve 22 Selection of Counsel.1 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for February 14, 2017. This Order likewise rules on the parties’ stipulated request to extend the dates for responding to the complaint and the case management conference. (Dkt. No. 15.) 1 The PSLRA directs courts to consider any motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff filed by class 2 members in response to a published notice of class action by the later of: (i) 90 days after the date 3 of publication, or (ii) as soon as practicable after the Court decides any pending motion to 4 consolidate. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) &(ii). Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), the 5 Court “shall” appoint “the presumptively most adequate plaintiff” to serve as lead plaintiff and 6 shall presume that plaintiff is the person or group of persons, that: 7 (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . .; 8 (bb) in the determination of the Court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Here, on November 11, 2016, counsel for plaintiff in the above-captioned action caused a 13 notice (the “Notice”) to be published over Globe Newswire pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of 14 the PSLRA, which announced that a securities class action had been filed against the defendants 15 herein, and advised investors in Pattern securities that they had until January 10, 2017 to file a 16 motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff. (See Declaration of Jennifer Pafiti in Support of the 17 Motion by Frank Rowe Michels and Robert Kezer for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval 18 of Lead Counsel (“Pafiti Decl.”), Exh. A.) 19 Based upon the matters submitted in connection with the motion: (1) Michels and Kezer are 20 the presumptively most adequate lead plaintiffs, as defined by the PSLRA, due to their alleged 21 losses of approximately $18,776, suffered in connection with their purchases of Pattern common 22 stock, as alleged in the action; and (2) Michels and Kezer have made a prima facie showing 23 sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as their 24 claims as alleged are typical of other putative class members’ claims, and the record before the 25 Court indicates that they will fairly and adequately represent the putative class. 26 27 The PSLRA further vests authority in the Lead Plaintiffs to select and retain lead counsel, subject to the approval of the Court. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Here, Michels and Kezer have 28 2 1 selected Pomerantz as Lead Counsel, and that firm appears to be experienced, well-qualified 2 counsel. 3 Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. 4 The Court further ORDERS that defendants shall meet and confer with Lead Counsel within 5 14 days of this Order to discuss whether any amended complaint will be filed. If the operative 6 complaint will not be amended, Defendants shall file their response to the complaint within 28 days 7 of this Order. 8 9 The case management conference, currently set for February 13, 2017, is CONTINUED to April 24, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1, Federal Courthouse, Oakland, California. This terminates Docket Nos. 15 and 24. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Date: January 31, 2017 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?