Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06557/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06557-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

IMPAX LABORATORIES INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06557-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFF AND 

LEAD COUNSEL, AND SETTING 

DEADLINES FOR FILING AND 

SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 13

This is a securities fraud class lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of persons who 

purchased the publicly-traded securities of Impax Laboratories Inc. (“Impax”) between February 

20, 2014 and November 2, 2016. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. The case was filed on November 11, 

2016, by Plaintiff Greg Fleming, who is represented by the law firm Pomerantz LLP. Id. at 1. On 

January 9, 2017, putative class member New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of 

New York City, Inc. Pension Fund (“Fund”), represented by the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman 

& Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”), filed a motion to appoint the Fund as lead plaintiff and to 

approve the Fund’s selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel, Dkt. No. 13 (“Mot.”) at 1-2, as 

well as a supporting declaration, Dkt. No. 14 (“McCormick Decl.”). On January 30, 2017, the 

Fund filed a notice of unopposed motion, requesting that the motion be granted and that the 

motion hearing be taken off calendar. Dkt. No. 18. At the February 14, 2017 case management 

conference, the Court granted the motion from the bench, set a deadline for the filing of an 

amended complaint, and stated that a written order would follow. Dkt. No. 27. 

I. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) “instructs district courts to select 

as lead plaintiff the one ‘most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.’” 

In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)). 

Case 4:16-cv-06557-HSG Document 29 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 5
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

Northern District of California

“The ‘most capable’ plaintiff—and hence the lead plaintiff—is the one who has the greatest 

financial stake in the outcome of the case, so long as he meets the requirements of Rule 23.” See 

id. at 729. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the PSLRA as establishing “a simple three-step 

process for identifying the lead plaintiff pursuant to these criteria.” Id. at 729.

A. Step One

Step One consists of meeting the PSLRA’s notice requirement. See id. at 729. “The first 

plaintiff to file an action covered by the [PSLRA] must post this notice ‘in a widely circulated 

national business-oriented publication or wire service.’” Id. at 729 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(A)(i)). The notice must be published within 20 days of the filing of the complaint. See 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice must also alert putative class members “(I) of the 

pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and(II) 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.” Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).

Here, notice was published in Business Wire less than 20 days after the filing of the 

complaint. Compare McCormick Decl., Ex. A with Compl. BusinessWire is a “global leader in 

press release distribution and regulatory disclosure.” BusinessWire, About Us, 

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/about (last visited February 14, 2017). The notice 

announced the filing of the class action, described the suit’s allegations, specified the putative 

class period, and explained that any motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff had to be filed by 

January 9, 2017. See McCormick Decl., Ex. A. Accordingly, the Court finds that Step One’s 

requirements are met.

B. Step Two

Step Two consists of identifying the presumptive lead plaintiff. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d

at 729-30. The statute states that there is a rebuttable presumption that the “most adequate 

plaintiff” is the one who “(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a 

notice under subparagraph (A)(i); (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial 

interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Thus, once the filing 

Case 4:16-cv-06557-HSG Document 29 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

requirement of subsection (a)(3)(A)(i)(aa) is met, the district court must “compare the financial 

stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” 

See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Next, the district court is required to “focus its attention on that

plaintiff and determine, based on the information he has provided in his pleadings and 

declarations, whether he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ 

and ‘adequacy.’” Id. at 730 (emphasis in original). If so, he is the presumptive lead plaintiff. Id. 

at 730.

Here, the Fund filed its motion to be appointed lead plaintiff by the January 9, 2017 

deadline, see Mot., satisfying the requirement of subsection (a)(3)(A)(i)(aa). Moreover, the Fund 

spent $508,218 purchasing 21,189 shares of Impax stock, and suffered alleged losses totaling

$162,625 as result of Impax’s alleged misconduct. See McCormick Decl., Exs. B-C. Since the 

Fund’s motion is unopposed and no other putative class member filed a motion, see Dkt. No. 18, 

no one is claiming to have suffered greater losses than the Fund. Therefore, the Fund has the 

“most to gain from the lawsuit.” See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730.

Next, the Court turns to the “typicality” and “adequacy” requirements of Rule 23(a). The 

Court finds that “typicality” is satisfied because the claims and defenses of the Fund “are typical 

of the claims and defenses of the class.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(3). Specifically, the Fund 

purchased Impax stock and allegedly suffered damages when Impax’s alleged misconduct was 

revealed. See McCormick Decl. Exs. B-C; see Bodri v. GoPro, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

57559, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016). In addition, the Fund represents that it is unaware of any 

conflicts between its claims and those asserted on behalf of the putative class, Mot. at 4, and given 

that the motion is unopposed, Dkt. No. 18, the Court has no reason to doubt the Fund’s 

representation, cf. Bodri, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57559, at *16-17 (finding that the typicality 

requirement was satisfied where movant represented that it was “not aware of any conflicts 

between its claims and those asserted by the class” and “no other movant ha[d] presented the 

Court with any reason to doubt these assertions”). The Court also finds that the “adequacy” 

requirement is satisfied because the Fund “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class.” See Fed R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(4). Specifically, the Fund’s “substantial financial stake in the 

Case 4:16-cv-06557-HSG Document 29 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

outcome of this litigation, its timely filing of its motion, and the quality of its briefing all 

demonstrate that it is both motivated to, and capable of, vigorously pursuing this litigation.” See 

Bodri, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57559, at *17. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Step Two’s requirements are met.

C. Step Three

Step Three consists of “giv[ing] other plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the presumptive 

lead plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements.” 

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. The Fund’s motion is unopposed. Dkt. No. 18. Therefore, this 

presumption has not been rebutted. Step Three’s requirements are also met.

Based on the foregoing, the Fund’s appointment as lead plaintiff is appropriate.

II. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL

The Fund has also moved for approval of its selection of Robbins Geller as class counsel. 

Mot. at 5; see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to 

the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.”) The Court defers to the 

Fund’s choice of lead counsel because the choice is not “so irrational, or so tainted by self-dealing 

or conflict of interest, as to cast genuine and serious doubt on that plaintiff’s willingness or ability 

to perform the functions of lead plaintiff.” See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 733; see also id. at 739 

n.11 (“Congress gave the lead plaintiff, and not the court, the power to select a lawyer for the 

class.”) Robbins Geller has extensive experience with complex securities litigation, and has been 

praised by numerous judges for the quality of the firm’s representation in class action litigation. 

See McCormick Decl. Ex. D (firm’s resume). Based on this experience, the firm has been

approved as lead counsel in PSLRA cases litigated in this District. See Bodri, 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 57559, at *19 (Tigar, J.). Therefore, approving the Fund’s selection of Robbins Geller as

lead counsel is merited. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Fund’s motion for appointment of the 

Fund as lead plaintiff and for approval of Robins Geller as lead counsel. The Court SETS April 

17, 2017 as the deadline to file an amended complaint and May 7, 2017 as the deadline for service 

Case 4:16-cv-06557-HSG Document 29 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

of the amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/15/2017

Case 4:16-cv-06557-HSG Document 29 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 5