Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02245/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02245-2/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

1 07cv2245 BTM(NLS), 08cv0128 BTM(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HCL PARTNERS LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of itself and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv2245 BTM(NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

 v.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL,

INC., S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESON,

DEAN M. LUVISA, AMIN I. KHALIFA and

PRICE WATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,

Defendants.

KENT CARMICHAEL, Individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL,

INC., S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESON,

MARK H. RACHESKY, AMIN I. KHALIFA

and DEAN M. LUVISA, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 08cv0128 BTM(NLS)

Westchester Capital Management, Inc. (“Westchester”) and Green & Smith

Investment Management LLC (“G&S”) have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

order appointing New Jersey Carpenters Pension and Benefit Fund as Lead Plaintiff. The

Case 3:07-cv-02245-MMA-NLS Document 63 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 3
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 07cv2245 BTM(NLS), 08cv0128 BTM(NLS)

motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A party’s failure to file

documents in connection with the underlying motion or opposition does not turn late-filed

documents into “newly discovered evidence.” Id. To prevail on the ground of newly

discovered evidence, the movant must show that the evidence “(1) existed at the time of the

trial or proceeding at which the ruling now protested was entered; (2) could not have been

discovered through due diligence; and (3) was of such magnitude that production of it earlier

would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d

563, 573 (9th Cir. 2008).

Westchester and G&S argue that the evidence submitted in support of their motion

to be appointed lead plaintiff was sufficient to establish that they had the authority to sue on

behalf of the funds. The Court disagrees for the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous

order. Behren declared that Westchester and G&S have unrestricted decision-making

authority with respect to the funds that they advise and manage, but did not state that the

funds had specifically authorized Westchester and G&S to sue on their behalf. (Behren

Decls. of 1/16/08 and 3/19/08). Although Behren stated that he was authorized to “undertake

all acts” on Westchester and G&S’s behalf, including commencing legal actions, again,

Behren failed to state that the funds had specifically authorized Westchester and G&S to sue

on their behalf. (Behren Decl. of 1/16/08, ¶ 2.)

In support of their motion for reconsideration, Westchester and G&S have submitted

additional evidence showing that they have the authority to sue on behalf of the funds,

including a Consent Action of the Board of Trustees for The Merger Fund and The Merger

Fund VL, a Consent Action of the Trustee of the GS Master Trust, and letters from Chief

Operating Officers of investment managers to certain of the funds. However, all of these

documents are dated after the Court issued its decision. Westchester and G&S presumably

Case 3:07-cv-02245-MMA-NLS Document 63 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 In Burch v. SLM Corp., 08cv1029 (WHP), Westchester & G&S presented the

additional evidence to the Southern District of New York before the court ruled on their

motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. Here, the additional evidence has been brought before

the Court in conjunction with a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, a different standard

applies. 

3 07cv2245 BTM(NLS), 08cv0128 BTM(NLS)

could have obtained this evidence at an earlier date but failed to do so. Therefore, the

evidence is not “newly discovered evidence” and does not warrant reconsideration of the

Court’s order appointing New Jersey Carpenters Pension and Benefit Fund as Lead Plaintiff.1

Therefore, Westchester and G&S’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02245-MMA-NLS Document 63 Filed 08/22/08 Page 3 of 3