Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01486-19/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

IN RE JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 02-1486 CW

ORDER GRANTING

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF CLASS

NOTICE

Lead Plaintiff Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

moves for an order approving its proposed notice of class

certification. Defendants JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDS), Jozef

Straus, Anthony R. Muller and Charles Abbe (collectively,

Defendants) oppose the motion. The matter was taken under

submission on the papers. Having considered all of the papers

filed by the parties, the Court grants the motion for approval of

the proposed notice of class certification, subject to revisions as

shown in the attached Notice. 

Defendants do not oppose Lead Plaintiff's plan for

dissemination of the class notice. The Court agrees that the

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 481 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

proposed plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of due process

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See, e.g., Silber v.

Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that

publication of notice in addition to actual notice to brokerage

houses meets standard of best practicable notice). 

Defendants object to the wording of the notice itself as

biased and inaccurate. Defendants submit an alternative proposed

notice, but their proposed alternative provides less detail and is

less accessible than Lead Plaintiff's. Moreover, Defendants'

proposal does not address their own objections with respect to

issues of precision or level of detail. For instance, Defendants

object that Lead Plaintiff's proposal misstates or understates

their defenses, but Defendants' alternative do not offer a

different or more detailed description of their defenses. 

Attached to this order is a revised version of the notice

proposed by Lead Plaintiff, incorporating those portions of

Defendants' objections which the Court considers well-taken. If

either party wishes to make any additional, substantive changes, it

may do so only by stipulation. The parties must submit any

stipulated revised notice to the Court for approval. 

The parties dispute whether Lead Plaintiff's proposed notice

is consistent with the Court's December 21, 2005 order certifying

the class. Lead Plaintiff erroneously asserts that it has been

appointed to represent the OCLI, E-TEK and SDL Subclasses. The

Court did not adopt Lead Plaintiff's revised proposed order on this

issue, but instead certified the Class and Subclasses and appointed

representatives in accordance with Lead Plaintiff's initial motion

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 481 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

for class certification: Lead Plaintiff was appointed to represent

the Class; Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System to

represent the OCLI Subclass; Dennis McCool to represent the E-TEK

Subclass; and Houston Municipal Exployees Pension System to

represent the SDL Subclass. 

As the attached Notice shows, minor revisions suffice in order

to ensure that the notice reflects a correct interpretation of the

December 21, 2005 Order. Lead Plaintiff's statements such as

“Connecticut asserts claims on behalf of the following three

subclasses” are not, as Defendants suggest, inaccurate. Except

where Subclass representatives are necessary, Connecticut, as Lead

Plaintiff, continues to assert claims on behalf of the entire

Class, including the members of the Subclasses. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Lead

Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice (Docket No. 441),

subject to revisions as shown in the attached Notice text. The

Court hereby orders:

(1) JDS shall instruct its stock transfer agent to provide to

counsel for Lead Plaintiff or its designee a list, compiled via

electronic media, of all persons who purchased or otherwise

acquired securities of JDS during the Class Period, which records

shall be provided by April 30, 2006.

(2) On or before May 20, 2006, counsel for Lead Plaintiff or

its designee will mail to stockholders of record so identified a

copy of the Notice, consistent with the text annexed hereto.

(3) On or before May 27, 2006, counsel for Lead Plaintiff or

its designee will publish in The Wall Street Journal a Summary

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 481 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Notice in the form of Exhibit C to the Declaration of Anthony J.

Harwood. As appropriate, the Summary Notice shall incorporate the

revisions made by the Court to the Notice. 

(4) Requests for exclusion from the Class, as set forth in the

Notice, shall be made by submitting a written request for exclusion

postmarked on or before July 20, 2006. 

(5) On or before May 20, 2006, counsel for Lead Plaintiff or

its designee shall establish a web site where it will post the

Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (SACC), the Answers to the

SACC, the Order granting class certification, the Notice and

Summary Notice, instructions on how to opt out and contact

information for the Notice Administrator and Lead Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/6/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01486-CW Document 481 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 4