Wilson v. Finisar Corporation et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting [12 in 5:11-cv-01252-EJD] Motion to Relate Case with C-11-1278 CW, C-11-1635 PJH. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall immediately relate Derchi-Russo v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1252 EJD to Wilson v. Finisar Corpor ation, et al., Case N o. CV 11-1278 CW and Wade v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1635 PJH. The parties in all three cases shall appear for a Case Management Conference on June 15, 2011 at 9 a.m. On or before June 6, 2011, the parties sh all file a Joint Case Management Statement. The Statement shall address whether the cases should be consolidated and if so, a schedule for nomination of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/4/2011. (Order posted corrects typographical error case number re Order Relating Case in 16 in 5:11-cv-01252-EJD, 14 in 5:11-cv-01278-EJD and 12 in 4:11-cv-01635-PJH). (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

MARTIN DERCHI RUSSO,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. CV 11-1252 EJD
EJD
No. CV 11-1278 CW
-1635
No. CV 11-1365 PJH
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES; SETTING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

FINISAR CORPORATION, et al.
Defendant.

15

/

16
Presently before the Court is Defendants Finisar Corporation, Jerry S. Rawls, Eitan Gertel

17
18

and Kurt Adzema’s (collectively, “Defendants”) unopposed Administrative Motion to

19

Consider Whether Cases Should be Related. (Hereafter, “Motion,” CV 11-1252 EJD, Docket Item

20

No. 12.) Defendants seek the Court’s determination as to whether Wilson v. Finisar Corporation, et

21

al., Case No. CV 11-1278 EJD and Wade v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1635 PJH,
CW

22

should be related to this action, Derchi-Russo v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1252

23

EJD. Defendants contend that all three cases assert nearly identical claims against the same

24

defendants, based on the same statements allegedly made between the same dates. Further, in each

25

case, the claims are asserted on behalf of an almost identical alleged plaintiff classes of securities

26

purchasers. (Motion at 1.)

27

///

28

///

1

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides:

2

An action is related to another action when:

3

(1) The action concerns substantially the same parties, property,
transaction or event; and

4

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome
duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
conducted before different judges.

5
6
7

Here, the Court finds the three actions involve an overlapping class of Plaintiffs that

9

purchased or otherwise acquired Finisar securities between December 1, 2010 and March 8, 2011

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

and were allegedly mislead by the same statements regarding Finisar.1 Plaintiffs allege in all three

11

cases that Defendants’ made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material

12

adverse facts about Finisar’s business, operations, and prospects . (See id.) All three cases allege

13

similar causes of action, and thus involve the same issues of law relating to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)

14

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Id.) The Court also finds that the three actions pose a

15

substantial risk of inconsistent judgments. In light of the substantial similarity of parties and events,

16

the Court finds that there is a risk of “an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or

17

conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.” Thus, the Court finds that the

18

cases are related within the meaning of Rule 3-12(a).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall immediately relate Derchi-Russo v. Finisar

19
20

Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1252 EJD to Wilson v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV

21

11-1278 EJD and Wade v. Finisar Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 11-1635 PJH.
CW

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

(Compare Class Action Complaint, CV 11-1252 EJD, Docket Item No. 1 with Class Action Complaint, CV 111278 CW, Docket Item No. 1 and Class Action Complaint, CV 11-1635 PJH, Docket Item No. 1.)

2

1

The parties in all three cases shall appear for a Case Management Conference on June 15,

2

2011 at 9 a.m. On or before June 6, 2011, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management

3

Statement. The Statement shall address whether the cases should be consolidated and if so, a

4

schedule for nomination of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: May 4, 2011
Edward J. Davila
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3