City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al
Filing
42
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 17 Public Retirement Systems' Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; denying 19 IUOE Local 39's Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; and denying 21 Pension Funds' Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
CITY OF ROYAL OAK RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
15
16
17
18
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., KEVIN R.
JOHNSON, ROBYN M. DENHOLM, and
SCOTT G. KRIENS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 5:11-CV-04003-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PUBLIC
RETIREMENT SYSTEMS’ MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD
PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS
SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL;
DENYING STATIONARY
ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 PENSION
TRUST FUND’S MOTION; AND
DENYING THE PENSION FUNDS’
MOTION
19
20
On August 15, 2011, the City of Royal Oak Retirement System (“Plaintiff”) filed a private
21
securities class action complaint against Defendants Juniper Networks, Inc., Kevin R. Johnson,
22
Robyn M. Denholm, and Scott G. Kriens (collectively “Defendants”). ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).
23
After Plaintiff published the pendency of this action on August 16, 2011, as required by federal
24
law, three parties moved the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of lead
25
counsel: (1) City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System and City of Bristol Pension Fund
26
(collectively, the “Public Retirement Systems”), see ECF No. 17; (2) Stationary Engineers Local
27
39 Pension Trust Fund (the “IUOE Local 39”), see ECF No. 19; and (3) Roofers Local No. 149
28
1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
Pension Fund and Steamship Trade Association-International Longshoremen’s Pension Benefit
2
Fund (collectively, the “Pension Funds”), see ECF No. 21.
3
IUOE Local 39 filed a Notice of Nonopposition to Public Retirement Systems’ and the
4
Pension Funds’ motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. Upon review of the competing lead
5
plaintiff motions, IUOE Local 39 conceded that “it appears that IUOE Local 39 does not possess
6
the largest financial interest in the litigation.” ECF No. 36 at 1. Accordingly, IUOE Local 39
7
stated that it did not oppose appointment of the Public Retirement Systems or the Pension Funds as
8
lead plaintiff. Id.
The Pension Funds did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
for appointment of lead plaintiff filed by IUOE Local 39 or Public Retirement Systems. Moreover,
11
the Pension Funds did not file a reply to Public Retirement Systems’ Opposition to Pension Funds’
12
motion. See ECF No. 37 (Public Retirement Systems’ Opposition to Competing Lead Plaintiffs’
13
Motions).
14
Thus, only the Public Retirement Systems’ motion is unopposed. Pursuant to Civil Local
15
Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for determination without oral argument and
16
hereby VACATES the hearing on these motions set for January 12, 2012. Having considered the
17
parties’ submissions and the relevant legal authorities, and for the reasons discussed herein, the
18
Court GRANTS Public Retirement Systems’ motion and DENIES IUOE Local 39’s and the
19
Pension Funds’ motions. The case management conference scheduled for January 12, 2012 at 1:30
20
p.m. remains as set.
21
I. BACKGROUND
22
This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
23
acquired the common stock of Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper” or “Company”) between July 20,
24
2010 and July 26, 2011 (the “Class Period”), against Juniper and certain of its officers and directors
25
for alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
26
10b-5. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 11. Juniper designs, develops, and sells products and services that provide its
27
customers with network infrastructure for accelerating the deployment of services and applications
28
over a single network. Id. ¶ 2. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and
2
financial results. Id. ¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that Defendants knew of the Company’s negative
3
business trends, but failed to disclose such information to investors, causing the Company’s stock
4
to be traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $44.46 per
5
share on March 8, 2011. Id. ¶¶ 3, 34, 43-44.
6
On June 1, 2011, Defendant Kevin R. Johnson, CEO of Juniper, cautioned investors that
7
“there’s reason to be somewhat cautious in the near term.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 38. Subsequently, the
8
Company’s stock suffered a one-day decline of 10% on high volume, closing at $32.97 per share
9
on June 1, 2011. Id. ¶ 39. On July 26, 2011, Juniper’s stock closed at $31.17 per share. After the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
close of trading that day, Juniper issued a release reporting the Company’s actual second quarter
11
2011 financial and operating results and forward guidance, both of which came in well below what
12
Defendants had led stock analysts and the investment community to expect. Id. ¶ 7, 41. On this
13
news, Juniper’s stock dropped nearly 21%, or $6.51 per share, to close at $24.66 on volume of 61.6
14
million shares the following trading day. Id. at 42.
15
II. LEGAL STANDARD
16
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, governs the
17
selection of a lead plaintiff in private securities class actions. In the PSLRA’s own words, this
18
plaintiff is to be the “most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.” 15
19
U.S.C. § 89u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Under the PSLRA, a three-step process determines the lead plaintiff.
20
In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the first plaintiff to file an action
21
governed by the PSLRA must publicize the pendency of the action, the claims made, and the
22
purported class period “in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire
23
service.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). 1 This notice must also alert the public that “any
24
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
25
4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). 2
26
27
28
1
This publication is to be made “[n]o later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is
filed.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
2
Those who wish to move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff must do so “not later than 60
days after the date on which the notice is published.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II).
3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
Second, the court must select the presumptive lead plaintiff. See In re Cavanaugh, 306
2
F.3d at 729-30 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)). The PSLRA provides that the
3
presumptive lead plaintiff is the person or group of persons with “the largest financial interest in
4
the relief sought by the class,” who also “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
5
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). To determine the
6
presumptive lead plaintiff, “the district court must compare the financial stakes of the various
7
plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” In re Cavanaugh, 306
8
F.3d at 730 (footnote omitted). Once the district court identifies the plaintiff with the most to gain,
9
the district court must determine whether that plaintiff, based on the information he provides,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
“satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” Id. If
11
he does, that plaintiff becomes the presumptive lead plaintiff. Id. If not, the court selects the
12
plaintiff with the next largest financial stake and determines whether that plaintiff satisfies the
13
requirements of Rule 23. Id. The court repeats this process until it selects a presumptive lead
14
plaintiff. Id.
15
Third, those plaintiffs not selected as the presumptive lead plaintiff may “rebut the
16
presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy
17
requirements.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). This is done by showing that the
18
presumptive lead plaintiff either “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or
19
“is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the
20
class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)-(bb). If the court determines that the presumptive
21
lead plaintiff does not meet the typicality or adequacy requirement, then it must return to step two,
22
select a new presumptive lead plaintiff, and again allow the other plaintiffs to rebut the new
23
presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 731. The court repeats this
24
process “until all challenges have been exhausted.” Id. (citation and footnote omitted).
25
Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff is given the right, subject to court approval, to “select
26
and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). “[T]he district court
27
should not reject a lead plaintiff’s proposed counsel merely because it would have chosen
28
differently.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2009)
4
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
(citation omitted). “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the district court
2
should generally defer to that choice.” Id. at 712 (citations omitted).
3
4
III. ANALYSIS
Before the Court are three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of
lead counsel, filed by Public Retirement Systems, IUOE Local 39, and Pension Funds,
6
respectively. Public Retirement Systems’ motion is unopposed. See ECF Nos. 36 (IUOE Local
7
39’s Notice of Nonopposition), 38 (Public Retirement Systems’ Reply, noting the Pension Funds’
8
failure to file an opposition or notice of nonopposition). IUOE Local 39’s and Pension Funds’
9
motions are opposed by Public Retirement Systems. See ECF No. 37. In conformity with the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
procedure established by the PSLRA and the Ninth Circuit in In re Cavanaugh, the Court will
11
determine which of these three movants should serve as the lead plaintiff in the instant action.
12
A. Procedural Requirements
13
In accordance with the requirements under the PSLRA, Plaintiff City of Royal Oak
14
Retirement System timely published a notice in Business Wire on August 16, 2011, one day after
15
filing this action, informing the class of the pendency of the action, the claims made, and the
16
purported class period. See ECF No. 5 & Ex. A. Public Retirement Systems, IUOE Local 39, and
17
Pension Funds all filed their respective motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
18
lead counsel on October 17, 2011, which is within 60 days of publication of the notice. Therefore,
19
all three motions are timely and shall be considered by the Court. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
20
4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II); id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).
21
B. Presumptive Lead Plaintiff
22
23
1. Largest Financial Interest
In selecting a lead plaintiff, the Court begins by “compar[ing] the financial stakes of the
24
various plaintiffs and determin[ing] which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” In re
25
Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Neither the PSLRA nor the Ninth Circuit has provided specific
26
guidance for calculating which plaintiff has the largest financial interest. See Perlmutter v.
27
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 10-cv-03451-LHK, 2011 WL 566814, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011).
28
5
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
The Ninth Circuit has instructed only that “the court may select accounting methods that are both
2
rational and consistently applied.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 n.4.
3
Here, all three movants advocate calculating their financial interests based on approximate
4
losses suffered, which requires the Court to consider: “(1) the number of shares purchased during
5
the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period; (3) the total net
6
funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered during the class
7
period.” In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing Lax v. First
8
Merchants Acceptance Corp., No. 97 Civ. 2715, 1997 WL 461036, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11,
9
1997)). Courts applying the Olsten test generally place the greatest emphasis on the last of these
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
factors. See Perlmutter, 2011 WL 566814, at *7.
Under the “last-in, first-out” method for calculating losses suffered, which this and other
12
courts have approved as a reasonable accounting method, see id., Public Retirement Systems
13
claims that it purchased 125,008 shares of Juniper securities during the Class period and suffered
14
losses of $2,092,159. See ECF No. 17 at 5-6; Blasy Decl. Ex. B; ECF No. 37 at 3-5. The Pension
15
Funds assert that they purchased 46,087 shares of Juniper securities during the Class Period and
16
suffered losses of approximately $717,795. See ECF No. 21 at 4; McCormick Decl. Exs. A & B.
17
IUOE Local 39 asserts that it purchased 43,280 shares and suffered losses of approximately
18
$518,872. See ECF No. 19 at 4; Goldberg Decl. Exs. B & C. There is no dispute that Public
19
Retirement Systems suffered the greatest loss during the Class Period under the last-in, first-out
20
calculation method. See, e.g., IUOE Local 39 Notice of Nonopposition, ECF No. 36 at 1
21
(conceding that “it appears that IUOE Local 39 does not possess the largest financial interest in the
22
litigation”). Moreover, neither IUOE Local 39 nor Pension Funds argues that under a different
23
calculation method, it would possess the largest financial interest in the litigation. Accordingly, the
24
Court finds that Public Retirement Systems has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by
25
the class.
26
2. Rule 23 Requirements
27
Having determined that Public Retirement Systems is the plaintiff with the greatest
28
financial interest in this case, the Court next considers whether Public Retirement Systems satisfies
6
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular the typicality and adequacy requirements. See In re
2
Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). This showing need not be as thorough
3
as would be required on a motion for class certification. See Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F.
4
Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
5
“The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether
the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
7
members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976
8
F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the Court
9
finds that the claims asserted by Public Retirement Systems are based on the same conduct giving
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
rise to the other class members’ claims, namely Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations during the
11
Class Period. The Court also finds that Public Retirement Systems has suffered the same injury as
12
other plaintiffs, namely the purchase of Juniper stock during the Class Period at prices artificially
13
inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and omissions. Accordingly,
14
the Court finds that Public Retirement Systems satisfies the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a).
15
The test for adequacy is whether the class representative and his counsel “have any
16
conflicts of interest with other class members” and whether the class representative and his counsel
17
will “prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938,
18
957 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The Court finds that the claims of Public Retirement
19
Systems are typical of the class and that Public Retirement Systems’ interests are aligned with the
20
interests of the absent class members. The Court further finds, upon review of their submitted
21
declarations, that the Public Retirement Systems and their selected counsel have amply
22
demonstrated they will vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class. See Blasy Decl. Ex.
23
C (sworn certifications) & D (firm resume); Public Retirement Systems Decl. ¶¶ 4-7. Accordingly,
24
the Court finds that Public Retirement Systems has shown it will fairly and adequately protects the
25
interests of the class, satisfying the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a).
26
27
28
3. Rebuttal of Presumptive Lead Plaintiff
Having established that it has the greatest financial stake and that it satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a), Public Retirement Systems is presumptively the most adequate
7
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
plaintiff to represent the class in this securities litigation. This presumption may be rebutted only
2
upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that Public Retirement Systems either (1)
3
“will not fairly and adequate protect the interests of the class,” or (2) “is subject to unique defenses
4
that render [it] incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
5
4(a)(3)(3)(B)(iii)(II). No purported class member has come forward with such rebuttal evidence.
6
Neither IUOE Local 39 nor Pension Funds opposed Public Retirement Systems’ motion for
7
appointment as lead plaintiff. Accordingly, the presumption that Public Retirement Systems is the
8
most adequate lead plaintiff has not been rebutted, and the Court therefore need not proceed to
9
consider the motion of the movant with the next largest financial stake. See In re Cavanaugh, 306
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
F.3d at 730-31.
11
C. Lead Counsel
12
The PSLRA provides that “[t]he most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the
13
court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The statute
14
expressly provides that the power to select lead counsel rests with the lead plaintiff, not with the
15
Court. Cohen, 586 F.3d at 709. So long as the lead plaintiff has made “a reasonable choice of
16
counsel, the district court should generally defer to that choice.” Id. at 712. Here, the Public
17
Retirement Systems has selected the law firm of Scott+Scott LLP (“Scott+Scott”), a firm with
18
substantial experience in the prosecution of shareholder and securities class actions and with the
19
necessary resources to conduct this litigation efficiently. See Blasy Decl. Ex. D. The Court has
20
reviewed the firm’s resume and is satisfied that Public Retirement Systems has made a reasonable
21
choice of counsel. See id. Accordingly, the Court defers to that choice and hereby approves Public
22
Retirement Systems’ selection of Scott+Scott as lead counsel.
23
IV. CONCLUSION
24
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Public Retirement Systems’ motion for
25
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead counsel, and DENIES IUOE
26
Local 39’s and Pension Funds’ motions. Public Retirement Systems is hereby appointed lead
27
plaintiff in this action, and Scott+Scott LLP is hereby appointed lead counsel.
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
1
2
3
Dated: January 9, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
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
9
Case No.: 5:11-cv-04003-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL
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?