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)
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?