Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04290/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04290-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 PIXAR SECURITIES LITIGATION

 

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

 /

No. C 05-04290 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2006:

The Court tentatively RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

lead plaintiff and approval of lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel. The Court has reviewed

the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited

in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be

given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:05-cv-04290-JSW Document 44 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Initially, there were two competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead

counsel. Donald Hedges Lake, Jr. (“Lake”)and Frederick P. Arndt (“Arndt”) filed one

motion seeking to be appointment lead plaintiff and for the Court to approve Milberg

Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (“Milberg Weiss”) as lead counsel, and Daniel Edward

Offutt Revocable Trust (“Offutt”) filed a separate motion to be appointed lead plaintiff

and to have the Court approve Stull, Stull & Brody as lead counsel. On January 20,

2006, Lake, Arndt, and Offutt filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to have both

motions granted, have all three individuals appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and have both

firms appointed as co-lead counsel. On January 26, 2006, Offutt withdrew his motion. 

On January 27, 2006, Lake and Arndt filed a reply in support of their motion and did not

mention the prior stipulation. What is the status of the parties’ stipulation?

(2) In light of the fact that Lake sold his all of his Pixar stock two months before the alleged

announcement on June 30, 2005 that “shocked the market” and “disclosed defendants’

actual sales experience,” how can he demonstrate “loss causation?” See Dura

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 1631 (2005) (“[I]f ... the purchaser

sells the shares quickly before the relevant truth begins to leak out, the misrepresentation

will not have led to any loss.”). Even if Lake can eventually prove causation for some

damages, is he subject to unique defenses which make him an inadequate lead plaintiff?

(3) Arndt only alleges a loss of $970. If the Court disregards Lake’s alleged damages due to

causation problems and thus only considers Arndt’s alleged loss, is this amount

sufficient to demonstrate Arndt has the “largest financial interest in relief sought by the

class?” See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(3)(b)(iii)(I).

(4) If the Court finds that Lake and Arndt should not be appointed as lead plaintiffs, what

procedures may the Court follow to give other persons an opportunity to be appointed

lead plaintiff?

Case 3:05-cv-04290-JSW Document 44 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

(5) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04290-JSW Document 44 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3