Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00374/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMNON MEIR, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALVARION LTD,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00374 JSW

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR

CONSOLIDATION AND TO

APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFF

Now pending before the Court in the above-captioned matter are motions to be

appointed lead plaintiff. Plaintiff Amnon Meir filed this putative securities class action on

January 19, 2007 against defendant Alvarion LTD (“Alvarion”). Three other plaintiffs then

filed putative securities class actions against Alvarion. On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff Madfred

Hacker filed an action in the Northern District of California, 07-00719 JSW (“Hacker action”). 

On February 13, 2007, Plaintiff Paul Berger filed an action in the Southern District of New

York, 07-01007 SHS, and on March 12, 2007, plaintiff Ivring Braun filed one in the Southern

District of New York, 07-02096 SHS (collectively, “New York Cases”).

Relation and Consolidation

On April 5, 2007, Alvarion filed a notice of related cases, alerting this Court to the

possibility that the Hacker action and the New York Cases may be related to the abovecaptioned matter. However, to date, no party has filed an administrative motion to consider

whether the cases should be related as required by Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-12(b). 

Moreover, although motions to transfer the New York cases to this district have been filed, they

Case 3:07-cv-00374-JSW Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

have not been resolved. Unless and until the New York cases are transferred here, the Court

cannot relate or consolidate those cases with the cases currently before it.

Motions to be Appointed Lead Counsel

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 requires any member of the purported class who seeks to be

appointed lead plaintiff to file a motion by no later than sixty days after the notice is provided

by the plaintiff or plaintiffs in the first filed action. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A). However,

when there is more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or

claims, the Court may not adjudicate motions to be appointed lead counsel until after it renders

a decision on a motion to consolidate. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B). As noted above, the

Court cannot determine whether all the actions should be consolidated unless and until all

actions are pending in the Northern District of California and have been related to this Court.

Therefore, the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing set for May 18, 2007 on the

pending motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. Within one week after rulings in both of the

New York cases are issued on the pending motions to transfer, the parties are directed to advise

this Court of the rulings. Thereafter, any party who seeks to have the cases in this district

related and/or consolidated, shall file an administrative motion to relate the cases and a motion

or stipulation to consolidate the cases. After the Court has determined whether the cases should

be related and/or consolidated, the Court will reset a hearing on the pending motions to be

appointed lead plaintiff.

In the interim, the Court issues the following briefing schedule with respect to the

pending motions to be appointed lead plaintiff: any opposition to these motions shall be filed by

no later than Wednesday, April 25, 2007 and all reply briefs, if any, shall be filed by no later

than Wednesday, May 2, 2007. If the parties wish to modify this schedule, they may submit for

the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order demonstrating good cause for any

modification requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00374-JSW Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Case 3:07-cv-00374-JSW Document 27 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3