Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02991/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02991-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL HUSSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02991-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL 

APPROVAL FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD 

COUNSEL

Docket Nos. 11, 35

Previously, the Court conditionally granted CPGERS’s motion to appoint lead plaintiff and 

lead counsel. The Court conditioned its approval on CPGERS’s giving notice of this lawsuit (and 

not a related case pending in Delaware, i.e., the Borrego action). See Docket No. 35 (order). 

CPGERS has now filed a brief, asking the Court to grant final approval because it has, in fact, 

already given notice of this lawsuit. See Resp., Ex. A (PR Newswire). 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it would have been helpful if CPGERS had 

provided a copy of this this notice in its prior papers. But even if it had, the notice is arguably 

deficient in that it gives fewer than 60 days after the notice publication date for a putative class 

member to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)

(stating that the notice must advise 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”).

Implicitly recognizing such, CPGERS argues, in the alternative, that it need not give notice 

of this lawsuit because § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii) provides that, “[i]f more than one action on behalf of a 

class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this title [15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et 

seq.] is filed, only the plaintiff or plaintiffs in the first filed action [here, Borrego] shall be required 

Case 3:16-cv-02991-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

to cause notice to be published in accordance with clause (i).” Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii). This 

argument has merit, and therefore the Court shall deem the notice requirement satisfied and grant 

final approval to the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court notes that this case 

is somewhat unusual in that CPGERS – already appointed lead plaintiff in Borrego – apparently 

intends to (effectively) abandon the Borrego case in favor of the instant case. Nevertheless, the 

fact remains that there has been notice through Borrego, giving other putative class members the 

opportunity to ask to be lead and, if so appointed, then strategize as to how to pursue the litigation, 

including making a decision as to what forum the case should be litigated.

Accordingly, final approval of lead plaintiff and lead counsel is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02991-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2