Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Copia Claims LLC v. California Infrastructure and Complaint Economic Development Bank

August 4, 2009

COPIA CLAIMS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMPLAINT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK, A PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AN ENTITY; ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, AN ENTITY; AND ACA FINANCIAL GUARANTY CORPORATION, AN ENTITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING: (1) DATE BY WHICH LEAD PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT WILL BE FILED; AND (2) DATE BY WHICH DEFENDANTS WILL RESPOND TO LEAD PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE

WHEREAS:

1. This case, an alleged class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is subject to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), including the requirements for appointment of a lead plaintiff;

2. On June 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint;

3. On July 31, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file a further amended complaint, which will supersede the existing First Amended Complaint;

4. The PSLRA imposes a number of procedural requirements that must occur before the lead plaintiff ultimately appointed by the Court will be in a position to assert an operative complaint, including the following:

a. Plaintiff must publish a notice of pendency of action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A), which was done on June 30, 2009;

b. Not later than 60 days after publication of such notice (i.e., by August 29, 2009), any member of the purported class may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3);

c. Not later than 90 days after publication of such notice (i.e., by September 28, 2009), the Court shall consider any motion made by a class member to be appointed lead plaintiff and shall appoint a lead plaintiff, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B);

d. The appointed lead plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the Court, select and retain counsel to represent the alleged class;

5. Under the PSLRA, all discovery and other proceedings (including initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)) are stayed until and unless it is determined that plaintiff can state a claim capable of surviving a motion to dismiss (15 U.S.C. §78u-4(b)(3); Medhekar v. U.S. District Court, 99 F.3d 325, 328 (9th Cir. 1996));

6. In light of the foregoing requirements, it is customary for the parties in class actions governed by the PSLRA to agree, and for courts in such actions to order, that:

a. The class member ultimately appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff be given an opportunity after its appointment to file a further amended complaint as its operative pleading; and

b. To prevent the Court and the parties from spending time and resources on unnecessary motion practice, defendants are typically not required to respond to any pleading until a lead plaintiff has been appointed by the Court and the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.