Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust et al v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 127 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. The lead plaintiff's motion is denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 9/14/2012. (Casteel, Heather)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ X
PLUMBERS’ & PIPEFITTERS’ LOCAL #562 :
SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN & TRUST, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
- against :
:
J.P.
MORGAN
ACCEPTANCE :
CORPORATION I, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------ X

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

No. 08 CV 1713 (ERK) (WDW)

KORMAN, District Judge.
I assume familiarity with the facts of this case, a full description of which can be found in
my decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on December 13, 2011, and corrected on
February 23, 2012. In deciding that motion, I held that the Lead Plaintiff lacked Article III
standing to assert claims under Certificates which it did not purchase or hold. I also held that the
Lead Plaintiff lacked statutory standing to assert claims under specific tranches from which it did
not purchase a Certificate. On January 11, 2012, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to amend that
opinion to include a certification for interlocutory appeal on the issue of standing. On May 4,
2012, I stayed the Lead Plaintiff’s motion because an appeal then-pending before the Second
Circuit would likely decide the issue. The Second Circuit has now issued a decision in that
appeal.
In NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., which is factually
identical to this case, the Second Circuit held that the putative lead plaintiff had “standing to
assert the claims of purchasers of certificates backed by mortgages originated by the same
lenders that originated the mortgages backing plaintiff’s certificates.” No. 11-2762, slip op. at 37

1

(2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2012). The Second Circuit also held that the putative lead plaintiff had standing
“to assert §§ 11 and 12(a)(2) claims on behalf of Certificate-holders from different tranches of
Offerings (or within Offerings) backed by loans originated by the same originators.” Id. at 32.
Here, the Lead Plaintiff purchased eight Certificates, which were from trusts that
contained mortgages originated by the following originators:

Chase, Countrywide, PHH,

ResMAE, WMC, CTX, M & T, and Wells Fargo. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 34. Of the thirty-three
trusts under which the Lead Plaintiff alleges claims, three contain no mortgages originated by
any of the above originators: JPMMAT 2006-ACC1, JPMMAT 2006-HE2, and JPMMAT 2006NC1. Accordingly, the Lead Plaintiff has standing to assert claims of purchasers of Certificates
from the other thirty trusts enumerated in ¶ 34 of the amended complaint, and that standing is not
limited to any specific tranches within each trust. This assumes that the Certificates held by the
Lead Plaintiff were backed by mortgages originated by all of the above named originators.
Nevertheless, because the amended complaint only names the originators that issued the
mortgages comprising each trust, not each Certificate within the trusts, the parties should advise
me if the Certificates held by the Lead Plaintiff were not backed by mortgages originated by the
above-named originators and I will modify the Order to reflect the extent of the Lead Plaintiff’s
standing accordingly.
Consequently, in light of the Second Circuit’s opinion in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare
Fund, the Lead Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.
Brooklyn, New York
September 14, 2012

Edward R. Korman
Edward R. Korman
Senior United States District Judge

2