HAYES v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.

Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST.

RICHARD HAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 77
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 77 Securities Fraud
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities / Commodities
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Joshua B. Silverman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent Prongay , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sunny September Sarkis , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Keith Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jonathan Stern , Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Sunny September Sarkis , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Herb Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sunny September Sarkis , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P. Rubin , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang , Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel , Jones Day & Matthew D. Stachel , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Perrotta Cole , Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Sangyun Kim , Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Fang Peng , Kobre & Kim LLP.

R. Douglas Norby, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison LLP.

Ilbok Lee, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel , Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Nader Tavakoli, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fetterman , Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Takenouchi , Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Brian Choi , Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor Joseph Welch , Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice.

Randal Klein, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Elkins, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson , Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson , Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson , Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson , Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Needham & Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson , Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Interested Party, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marc Ian Gross , Pomerantz LLP, Dennis J. Herman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joshua B. Silverman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Mary K. Blasy , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Wernke , Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Sunny September Sarkis , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: ECF No. 294

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.'s ("Avenue Capital") motion to strike Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification and for attorneys' fees and expenses. ECF No. 294 at 1. For the reasons below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2016, the Court conducted a case management conference in this case. ECF No. 223. At the conference, the Court set a schedule for the briefing and hearing of a class certification motion, for discovery, and for trial. Id. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on July 8, 2016, the deadline for that motion. In their motion, Plaintiffs sought a class period from February 1, 2012 to February 12, 2015. ECF No. 231 at 2. On December 22, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but limited the class period to February 1, 2012 through March 11, 2014. ECF No. 286.

Plaintiffs did not file a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. Instead, on January 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a second motion for class certification for purchasers of MagnaChip stock between March 12, 2014 and February 12, 2015. ECF No. 289. This was precisely the period of time the Court eliminated from the class period in its December 22 order. On January 18, 2017, Avenue Capital moved to strike Plaintiffs' second class certification motion. ECF No. 294.

II. ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a "court may issue any just orders . . . if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order." Rule 12(f) gives the Court broad powers to "protect[] the due and orderly administration of justice and [] maintain[] the authority and dignity of the court." Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). This includes the power to control the Court's docket by "striking pleadings in whole or in part." Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii).

Here, Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification does not comply with the Court's order, which set a deadline for the filing of a class certification motion and did not contemplate successive class certification motions. The Court's power to strike motions as untimely under Rule 12(f) is well established in the law. E.g., SAGE Electrochromics Inc. v. View Inc., No. C-12-06441 JST (DMR), 2014 WL 1998049, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2014) (striking "invalidity contentions" as untimely under the court's scheduling order); see also ECF No. 294 at 7-8 (citing cases).

Plaintiffs argue correctly that a second motion for class certification is not always inappropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), for example, provides that "[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment." But Plaintiffs cite no authority supporting the theory that Rule 23(c)(1)(C) allows Plaintiffs to file a second class certification motion just because they received an unfavorable ruling on their first one. See Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California, No. C 09-2037 PJH, 2015 WL 3866212, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) ("Rule 23(c)(1)(C) does not reference motions to alter or amend class certification orders, and it is not a separate mechanism by which a party can seek reconsideration of a prior order relating to class certification."). Rather, Rule 23(c)(1)(C) applies where "subsequent developments" warrant revisiting a class certification decision. Friend v. Hertz Corp., No. C-07-5222 MMC, 2014 WL 4415988, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014) ("In the absence of subsequent developments warranting a revision, . . . the Court ordinarily has little reason to revisit the issue of the propriety of its original [class certification] determination.").

In this case, aside from the Court's December 22 order granting class certification, there are no "subsequent developments" that justify Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification. As Plaintiffs admit in their opposition brief, their pending motion contains no new arguments and relies on no new evidence. ECF No. 295 at 5 ("Plaintiffs' motion to certify a second class is brought in response to, and to address issues raised but not resolved in, the Court's December 22, 2016 Order."); id. at 4 ("Plaintiffs' motion addresse[s] evidence already in the record, and d[oes] not attach any additional expert reports or affidavits."); id. at 7 ("Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Second Class raises no new evidence, and consequently requires no additional discovery."). Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a case where the court's ruling on one motion qualifies as a subsequent development justifying the filing of a second. The one case Plaintiffs cite on this point, Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 316 F.R.D. 295 (C.D. Cal. 2016), is distinguishable. There, the district court considered the plaintiffs' second class certification motion only after the parties stipulated that such a brief could be filed. Id. at 301. Clearly, no such stipulation exists here. In sum, Rule 23(c)(1)(C) cannot validate the filing of Plaintiffs' second class certification motion.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Avenue Capital's motion to strike. Avenue Capital's request for an award of its attorneys' fees incurred in filing this motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases