Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04802/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04802-4/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS

NO. C 04-04802 JW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE

7-11

Plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Administrative Relief Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11" seeking to

alter language in the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed March 1, 2006. 

(Docket Item No. 74.) Specifically, Plaintiffs wish to change the sentence at pages 15-16 of the

Court's Order, "in applying the Dura framework, the Ninth Circuit recognized that pleading loss

causation is a difficult task," to "in applying the Dura framework, the Ninth Circuit recognized that

pleading loss causation is not a difficult task." (Mot. at 1:14-19.) 

 Local Rule 7-11 is directed at "matters such as motions to exceed otherwise applicable page

limitations or motions to file documents under seal." L.R. 7-11. Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to

change language in its Order does not appear to fall within the intended ambit of Local Rule 7-11. 

To the extent that Plaintiffs intended to file a motion for reconsideration, which under Local Rule 7-

9 requires leave of the Court to so file, Plaintiffs will need to specifically show:

1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order

for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of

Case 5:04-cv-04802-JW Document 81 Filed 04/12/06 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

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact

or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time

of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9 (b) (2005). On an examination of Plaintiffs' Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs'

suggested alteration also would not meet the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. The Court notes that

the pinpoint citation in its Order should have read "In re Daou Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 411 F.3d 1006,

1025 (9th Cir. 2005)" instead of citing to page 1014. On this Court's reading of page 1025, the

Ninth Circuit, although not agreeing with the lower court's decision, does concur with the district

court's general assessment that "[a]s the district court pointed out, however, establishing 'loss

causation' is a more difficult task." The Ninth Circuit's "independent assessment" of the plaintiffs'

complaint, id. at 1026, and its limitation of loss causation to only the time period following

revelations of Daou's "true financial health," id. at 1026-27, indicate that the burden of pleading loss

causation is not as lenient as Plaintiffs suggest. The Court did not intend any confusion occasioned

by the Court's oversight of a pinpoint citation, but also finds that the citation of page 1014 instead of

page 1025 of the Daou decision does not rise to the standards set by Civil Local Rule 7-9 for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.

Dated: April 12, 2006

04cv4802adminrelief

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04802-JW Document 81 Filed 04/12/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Azra Z. Mehdi azram@lerachlaw.com

Dale E. Barnes dale.barnes@bingham.com

Darren J. Robbins e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

Elizabeth P. Lin elin@milbergweiss.com

Joseph Otto Click click@blankrome.com

Monique Winkler MoniqueW@lerachlaw.com

Patrick J. Coughlin patc@lerachlaw.com

Robert S. Green RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

Shana Eve Scarlett shanas@lerachlaw.com

Tricia Lynn McCormick triciam@lerachlaw.com

William S. Lerach e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

Willow E. Radcliffe willowr@lerachlaw.com

Kerry Brainard

600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

Michael Joseph

600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

Dated: April 12, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:_/s/ JW Chambers____________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-04802-JW Document 81 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3