Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04843/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04843-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

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

MURRAY ZUCKER, and MIDDLESEX

RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ZORAN CORPORATION, UZIA GALIL,

LEVY GERZBERG, KARL SCHNEIDER,

ISAAC SHENBERG, RAYMOND A.

BURGESS, JAMES D. MEINDL, JAMES B.

OWENS, JR., DAVID RYNNE, ARTHUR B.

STABENOW, PHILIP M. YOUNG,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-04843 WHA

ORDER STRIKING CAPITALIA

ASSET MANAGEMENT SGR SPA

FROM ACTION

Capitalia Asset Management may not willy-nilly and unilaterally jump into this action

without a proper motion to intervene or to be added as a party. Middlesex Retirement Systems

convinced the Court that it should be the lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. The appointment

order recognized that Middlesex may be limited in the claims it can assert but felt constrained to

conform to the presumption established by the circuit law and the PSLRA. The order did not

authorize Middlesex to invite others into the case as additional plaintiffs. As matters now stand,

Middlesex is the only plaintiff. All claims purportedly asserted by Capitalia are STRICKEN and

Capitalia is not a party to this action. 

If Capitalia moves to intervene or moves to join as a representative plaintiff under Rule

20, then a proper motion must be made. If such a motion is made, the motion should address:

Case 3:06-cv-04843-WHA Document 79 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

(i). When and how Capitalia came to the attention of Middlesex and why Capitalia

refrained from seeking to participate as a class representative earlier;

(ii). What steps Middlesex has taken to ensure that the addition of a new plaintiff will

not interfere with its ability to discharge its duties to the class;

(iii). Whether other would-be plaintiffs were considered;

(iv). What due diligence (if any) Middlesex has undertaken with respect to Capitalia;

(v). Counsel should submit a declaration showing that Capitalia has been acquired as

a client in a professionally proper way;

(vi). Does counsel have a conflict in representing the two separate clients;

(vii). As a class representative, would Capitalia have a duty to make its own fiduciary

decisions with respect to litigating the Section 10 claims, including settlement? 

What would be the decisional mechanism were it to develop that Capitalia

disagreed with Middlesex’s judgment in this regard? 

This order does not change the schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss set forth in

the order dated February 16, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2007 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04843-WHA Document 79 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2