Takiguchi et al v. MRI International, Inc. et al

Filing 426

ORDER granting 425 Stipulation to Amend Class Definition. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 5/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 JAMES E. GIBBONS (pro hac vice) Cal. State Bar No. 130631 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 South Figueroa Street, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel. (213) 624-6900 jeg@manningllp.com 5 10 ROBERT W. COHEN (pro hac vice) Cal. State Bar No. 150310 MARIKO TAENAKA (pro hac vice) Cal. State Bar No. 273895 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN, A.P.C. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel. (310) 282-7586 rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com mt@robertwcohenlaw.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, KAORUKO KOIZUMI, TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YOKO HATANO, YUKO NAKAMURA, HIDEHITO MIURA, YOSHIKO TAZAKI, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO, SATORU MORIYA, HIDENAO TAKAMA, SHIGERU KURISU, SAKA ONO, KAZUHIRO MATSUMOTO, KAYA HATANAKA, HIROKA YAMAJIRI, KIYOHARU YAMAMOTO, JUNKO YAMAMOTO, KOICHI INOUE, AKIKO NARUSE, TOSHIMASA NOMURA, and RITSU YURIKUSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarity situated, 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-VCF ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND THE CLASS DEFINITION Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants. 28 1 STIPULATION 1 2 On March 21, 2016, this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 404. The order certified the following MRI investor class: 3 [A]ll persons who purchased MRI securities during the period July 5, 2008, through May 1, 2013, and were injured as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Excluded from the class are the defendants, their employees, their family members and their affiliates, and the following 26 individuals who are plaintiffs in the pending litigation against the defendants in Japan: (1) Tomoyasu Kojima; (2) Keiko Amaya; (3) Masakazu Sekihara; (4) Chiri Satou; (5) Meiko Murakami; (6) Masayoshi Tsutsumi; (7) Yumiko Ishiguro; (8) Reiko Suzuki; (9) Hiroji Sumita; (10) Eiko Uchiyama; (11) Hideyo Uchiyama; (12) Youzou Shiki; (13) Naoki Nagasawa; (14) Noboru Yokoyama; (15) Masami Segawa; (16) Fumiko Takagi; (17) Kumiko Kaita; (18) Fumi Kobayashi; (19) Ikuko Miyazaki; (20) Hina Nagase; (21) Akio Iwama; (22) Kouji Kishida; (23) Eri Kishida; (24) Nomai Nii; (25) Youko Miyahara; and (26) Tsukiko Kurano. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs prepared and filed a proposed Notice of Class Certification using the above class definition. Dkt. No. 410. However, upon further review of the class definition, the parties now recognize that this class definition inadvertently excludes certain class members (namely those who purchased prior to the class period but nonetheless were injured during the class period) who were included as proposed class members in the Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 223). Specifically, paragraph 18 of the Fourth Amended Complaint defines the class as follows: “18. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons, during the Class Period, who were MRI investors and who were injured as a result of defendants’ illegal Ponzi scheme and actions (“Class or Class Members”). Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, their family members, and affiliates of defendants.” A court can amend or alter the class definition at any time, for any reason, before a decision on the merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1); Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Washington, 173 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Rule 23(c)(1), which gives the court “explicit permission to alter or amend a certification order before [a] decision on the merits . . .”); Andrews Farms v. Ca/cot, Ltd., 268 F.R.D. 380, 384 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[e]ven after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify”). 2 STIPULATION 1 The parties therefore seek to have the class definition of the class certification order amended to 2 be consistent with the definition set forth in the operative complaint, and that the court approve the 3 revised Notice of Class Certification. 4 The parties therefore stipulate as follows: 5 1. The class definition in the Order Granting Class Certification shall be amended as follows: 6 The MRI Investor Class consisting of: all persons who were MRI investors and who were injured as a result of the defendants’ alleged illegal Ponzi scheme and actions from July 5, 2008 through July 5, 2013. Excluded from the class are the defendants, their employees, their family members and their affiliates, and the following 26 individuals who are plaintiffs in the pending litigation against the defendants in Japan: (1) Tomoyasu Kojima; (2) Keiko Amaya; (3) Masakazu Sekihara; (4) Chiri Satou; (5) Meiko Murakami; (6) Masayoshi Tsutsumi; (7) Yumiko Ishiguro; (8) Reiko Suzuki; (9) Hiroji Sumita; (10) Eiko Uchiyama; (11) Hideyo Uchiyama; (12) Youzou Shiki; (13) Naoki Nagasawa; (14) Noboru Yokoyama; (15) Masami Segawa; (16) Fumiko Takagi; (17) Kumiko Kaita; (18) Fumi Kobayashi; (19) Ikuko Miyazaki; (20) Hina Nagase; (21) Akio Iwama; (22) Kouji Kishida; (23) Eri Kishida; (24) Nomai Nii; (25) Youko Miyahara; and (26) Tsukiko Kurano. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2. 16 Respectfully submitted. 17 18 19 That the Court approve the Notice of Class Certification, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: May 5, 2016 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP By: 20 /s/ James Gibbons JAMES E. GIBBONS STEVEN J. RENICK 21 ZACCARO MORGAN LLP 22 23 By: 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION /s/ Nicolas Morgan NICOLAS MORGAN Attorneys for Defendants Junzo Suzuki and Paul Suzuki HITZKE & ASSOCIATES 1 By: 2 3 /s/ Erick Ferran ERICK FERRAN Attorneys for Defendants MRI International, Inc. and Edwin Y. Fujinaga 4 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. GOLDSTEIN 5 6 By: 7 8 /s/ Robert Goldstein ROBERT A. GOLDSTEIN Attorneys for Defendant LVT, Inc., dba Sterling Escrow 9 10 11 12 13 The stipulation of the parties (#425) is GRANTED. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 6, 2016 DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________ Hon. Howard D. McKibben United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION

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?