United States District Court, N.D. California
LOGAN HESSEFORT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS, WATERPROOFERS & ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 8 WBPA FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, APPOINTING LEAD
PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVING SELECTION OF COUNSEL RE: ECF NOS.
TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
these securities class actions, the Court now considers
motions for consolidation and for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of selected counsel for a securities
class action. The New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund
(“NYHTC”) filed one motion. ECF No. 12. The
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System
(“Oklahoma Pension”) filed the second. ECF No.
29. The Court will grant NYHTC's motion and appoint the
pension fund as lead plaintiff, and their selected counsel.
The Court will also consolidate the two related cases:
Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. No
3:18-cv-838 and United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers
& Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super
Micro Computer, Inc. No. 3:18-cv-850.
a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Defendant Super
Micro Computer Inc.'s securities between August 5, 2016
and January 30, 2018. ECF No. 12 at 2. Super Micro
designs, develops, manufactures, and sells servers,
motherboards and other computer parts and accessories.
Id. at 3. The complaints allege that Super Micro
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the company. Id.
four parties filed motions seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of their selection of counsel. ECF
Nos. 12, 17, 25, 29. Two of the parties subsequently withdrew
or chose not to oppose, leaving NYHTC and the Oklahoma
Pension as the remaining competing plaintiffs. ECF Nos. 33,
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(“PSLRA”) provides that “[n]ot later than
20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed,
” the plaintiff shall publish a notice alerting members
of the purported class of the pendency of the action, the
claims asserted, and the purported class period. 15 U.S.C.
§ 78u-4(3)(a)(i). The notice should also inform
potential class members that “not later than 60 days
after the date on which the notice is published, any member
of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the purported class.” Id. §
the PSLRA, “[t]he ‘most capable' plaintiff -
and hence the lead plaintiff - is the one who has the
greatest financial stake in the outcome of the case, so long
as [the proposed lead plaintiff] meets the requirements of
Rule 23” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002).
“While the PSLRA does not specify how to calculate the
largest financial interest, approximate losses in the subject
securities is the preferred measure.” Bruce v.
Suntech Power Holdings Co., No. CV 12-04061 RS, 2012 WL
5927985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) (internal citation
the Court determines who the presumptive lead plaintiff is,
other plaintiffs in the class are provided with “an
opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's
showing that it satisfies Rule 23's typicality and
adequacy requirements.” Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at
730. “If, as a result of this process, the district
court determines that the presumptive lead plaintiff does not
meet the typicality or adequacy requirement, it then must
proceed to determine whether the plaintiff with the next
lower stake in the litigation has made a prima facie showing
of typicality and adequacy.” Id. at 731.
most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the
court, select and retain counsel to represent the
class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). “[I]f
the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel,
the district court should generally defer to that choice,
” and “should not reject a lead plaintiff's
proposed counsel merely because it would have chosen
differently.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.
Dist. of California, 586 F.3d 703, 711-12 (9th Cir.
the PSLRA, the Court must decide whether to consolidate
related actions prior to selecting a plaintiff. 15 U.S.C.
argues the Court should consolidate the cases under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42(a) because both involve
“virtually identical factual and legal issues.”
ECF No. 12 at 5. The Oklahoma Pension argues the case should
be consolidated for similar reasons. ECF No. ...