HOROWITZ v. SunEDISON, INC.

Case No. 4:15CV1769 RWS.

DINA HOROWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNEDISON, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

February 2, 2016.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dina Horowitz, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Rosemergy , CAREY AND DANIS & Maurice B. Graham , GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..

The Zecher Family Group, Plaintiff, represented by Norman E. Siegel , STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP.

SunEdison, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler , HEPLER BROOM & Glenn E. Davis , HEPLER BROOM.

Ahmad Chatila, Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler , HEPLER BROOM & Glenn E. Davis , HEPLER BROOM.

Brian Wuebbels, Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler , HEPLER BROOM & Glenn E. Davis , HEPLER BROOM.

Andrew C. Newman, Movant, represented by John J. Miller , SWANSON AND MIDGLEY.

Scott Kroeker, Movant, represented by James J. Rosemergy , CAREY AND DANIS.

Steve Wiegele, Movant, represented by James J. Rosemergy , CAREY AND DANIS.

Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Movant, represented by Eric S. Johnson , SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Eric S. Johnson , SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC.

Ankur Dadoo, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , POMERANTZ LLP.

Kim Kyung Boum, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , POMERANTZ LLP.

Cameron Braithwaite, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , POMERANTZ LLP.

Jerome Thissen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , POMERANTZ LLP.

Victoriano V. Fernandez, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , POMERANTZ LLP.

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN, Movant, represented by Maurice B. Graham , GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before me on a flurry of recent activity in this case. This is one of three securities class action lawsuits filed in this district against defendants. Various movants have now filed motions to consolidate this case with the other two cases and for appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiff. In doing so, they have lumped the consolidation issue into one motion with their motions seeking lead plaintiff and lead counsel status and have created a confusing mess of a docket sheet. This Court cannot decide anything about lead counsel and lead plaintiffs until the issue of consolidation has been resolved. Most of the movants did not even bother to support their request for consolidation with an appropriate legal memorandum addressing the issue, presumably believing that this Court would simply grant the request as a routine matter. This, however, is not the case. So that the docket sheet is clear and to prevent confusion, I am denying all pending motions without prejudice to being refiled in an appropriate fashion. This means filing a separate motion for consolidation, supported by a relevant legal memorandum actually addressing the issue of consolidation, for the Court's consideration. Any such motion shall also indicate whether defendants and/or plaintiff Dina Horowitz consent to consolidation.

Once the Court determines whether consolidation is appropriate, it will resolve the lead plaintiff/lead counsel issues. However, in reviewing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel motions currently on file, I note that all movants claim that they should be appointed lead plaintiff because they have suffered the greatest loss. These statements cannot all be true. I expect all movants to review these pending motions before refiling any motions for appointment of counsel, as the Court shall not have to hold a hearing to determine which movant, in fact, suffered the greatest loss, as such an inability to resolve even this most basic issue would not bode well for the rest of this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pending motions are denied without prejudice to being refiled in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event an appropriate motion to consolidate this action with case numbers 4:15CV1809 ERW and 4:16CV113 HEA is actually filed in this case, any objection to consolidation shall be filed within fourteen days of the motion being filed or said objection shall be waived.


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