Horowitz v. SunEdison, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pending motions are denied without prejudice to being refiled in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event an appropriate motion to consolidate this act ion with case numbers 4:15CV1809 ERW and 4:16CV113 HEA is actually filed in this case, any objection to consolidation shall be filed within fourteen days of the motion being filed or said objection shall be waived.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/2/16. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
SUNEDISON, INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:15CV1769 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on a flurry of recent activity in this case. This is
one of three securities class action lawsuits filed in this district against defendants.
Various movants have now filed motions to consolidate this case with the other
two cases and for appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiff. In doing so, they
have lumped the consolidation issue into one motion with their motions seeking
lead plaintiff and lead counsel status and have created a confusing mess of a docket
sheet. This Court cannot decide anything about lead counsel and lead plaintiffs
until the issue of consolidation has been resolved. Most of the movants did not
even bother to support their request for consolidation with an appropriate legal
memorandum addressing the issue, presumably believing that this Court would
simply grant the request as a routine matter. This, however, is not the case. So
that the docket sheet is clear and to prevent confusion, I am denying all pending
motions without prejudice to being refiled in an appropriate fashion. This means
filing a separate motion for consolidation, supported by a relevant legal
memorandum actually addressing the issue of consolidation, for the Court’s
consideration. Any such motion shall also indicate whether defendants and/or
plaintiff Dina Horowitz consent to consolidation.
Once the Court determines whether consolidation is appropriate, it will
resolve the lead plaintiff/lead counsel issues. However, in reviewing the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel motions currently on file, I note that all movants claim
that they should be appointed lead plaintiff because they have suffered the greatest
loss. These statements cannot all be true. I expect all movants to review these
pending motions before refiling any motions for appointment of counsel, as the
Court shall not have to hold a hearing to determine which movant, in fact, suffered
the greatest loss, as such an inability to resolve even this most basic issue would
not bode well for the rest of this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pending motions are denied without
prejudice to being refiled in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event an appropriate motion to
consolidate this action with case numbers 4:15CV1809 ERW and 4:16CV113
HEA is actually filed in this case, any objection to consolidation shall be filed
within fourteen days of the motion being filed or said objection shall be waived.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016.
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?