Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05094/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05094-1/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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C09-5094-JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ETC.

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 2/25/2010**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT CURRY, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HANSEN MEDICAL, INC., FREDERIC H.

MOLL and STEVEN M. VAN DICK,

 Defendants.

DAVID C. LIVINGSTONE, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HANSEN MEDICAL, INC., FREDERIC H.

MOLL and STEVEN M. VAN DICK,

 Defendants.

KIM M. PRENTER, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HANSEN MEDICAL, INC., FREDERIC H.

MOLL and STEVEN M. VAN DICK,

 Defendants.

Case Nos. 5:09-cv-05094-JF (HRL),

5:09-cv-05212-JW (PVT), 3:09-cv05367-CRB

ORDER GRANTING (1) MOTION 1

FOR CONSOLIDATION and (2)

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL

OF LEAD PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

[re: document nos. 6, 7, and 12]

Case 4:09-cv-05094-CW Document 15 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C09-5094-JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ETC.

(JFEX1)

Movants Mina Farr and Nader Farr move for (1) consolidation and (2) appointment as

lead plaintiffs and approval of lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The motions are unopposed and were

taken under submission without oral argument. The Court has considered the moving papers

and, for the reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted.

 I. BACKGROUND

These putative securities class actions are pursued in this district on behalf of purchasers

of the securities of Hansen Medical, Inc. (“Hansen”). The plaintiffs in each action seek remedies

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions

made by Hansen through Frederic H. Moll, Hansen’s chief executive officer, and Steven M. Van

Dick, Hansen’s chief financial officer. Movants seek to consolidate the three related actions as

well as appointment as lead plaintiffs and approval of lead counsel pursuant to § 21D(a)(3)(B) of

the Exchange Act, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

(“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B).

II. MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION

Movants request that the following actions be consolidated for all purposes under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 42(a) on the grounds that the actions are substantially identical and are brought against

the same defendants: Robert Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. C-09-5094-JF,

Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. C-09-5212, and Prenter v. Hansen Medical,

Inc. et al., Case No. 09-5367-CRB. 

The PSLRA directs that cases should be consolidated where, as here, there is “more than

one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims.’” Takeda v.

Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citing 15 U.S.C. §

78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) governs the consolidation of actions in federal court,

allowing that actions involving a common question of law or fact may be consolidated and that

the Court may make orders concerning the consolidated proceedings to avoid unnecessary costs

or delay. The three actions clearly involve common questions of law and fact. They cover the

same class period, are brought against the same defendants, allege the same violations of law,

and allege similar predicate facts. Moreover, the Court has received no opposition to the motion

Case 4:09-cv-05094-CW Document 15 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C09-5094-JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ETC.

(JFEX1)

for consolidation.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF

1. Legal standard

The PSLRA “provides a simple three-step process for identifying the lead plaintiff” in a

securities fraud case. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). “The first step

consists of publicizing the pendency of the action, the claims made and the purported class

period.” Id. Second, “the district court must consider the losses allegedly suffered by the various

plaintiffs,” and select as the “presumptively most adequate plaintiff . . . the one who has the

largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and [who] otherwise satisfies the

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 729-30 (internal citations

omitted). Third, the court must “give other plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the presumptive

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

730. No other plaintiff has applied for lead plaintiff or submitted an opposition to Movants’

request.

a. Publication

The plaintiffs must publish, “in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication

or wire service”, a notice advising (1) pendency of the action, the claims, and the class period and

(2) that any class member can move to become lead plaintiff within 60 days of the notice. 15

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). The notice given by Movants, which is attached as an exhibit to

their moving papers, satisfies these requirements. See Goldberg Decl. Ex. A.

b. Loss suffered

Movants also allege that they have the largest financial interest. Movants allege a loss of

$83,650. Goldberg Decl. Exs. B and C. Based on the same formula, Robert Curry allegedly

suffered a loss of $450. See Curry Complaint, Sworn Certification for Plaintiff. David

Livingstone allegedly suffered a loss of $567.99. See Livingstone Complaint, Sworn

Certification for Plaintiff. Kim Prenter allegedly suffered a loss of $19,889.23. See Prenter

Complaint, Sworn Certification for Plaintiff. The Court is not aware of any other potential lead

plaintiffs.

Case 4:09-cv-05094-CW Document 15 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C09-5094-JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ETC.

(JFEX1)

c. Rule 23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 provides that one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as

representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the

claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,

and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a). Because failure to satisfy prongs (1) or (2) would preclude certifying a class in

the first instance, this inquiry focuses on typicality and adequacy. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at

730 n.5.

“The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether

the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other

class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). No facts

alleged imply that the Movants are not typical members of the class, and no rebuttal has been

presented.

A class representative is “adequate” when counsel for the class is qualified and

competent, the representative’s interests are not antagonistic to the interests of absence class

members, and it is unlikely that the action is collusive. In re Northern Dist. of Cal., Dalkon

Shield IUD Prod. Liab. Litig., 693 F.2d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 1982). Movants appear to be adequate

class representatives.

IV. MOTION TO APPROVE LEAD COUNSEL

The PLSRA directs that once the court has designated a lead plaintiff, that plaintiff “shall,

subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. §

78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Based upon the evidence in the record, the Court is satisfied that Movants’

counsel of choice is well qualified to represent the class. The Court also is satisfied that it has

ample means to address any issues concerning the adequacy of counsel’s performance that may

arise as the instant litigation progresses. Accordingly, the Court will appoint the firm of Glancy

Binkow & Goldberg LLP as lead plaintiffs’ counsel.

Case 4:09-cv-05094-CW Document 15 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 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

5

Case No. C09-5094-JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ETC.

(JFEX1)

III. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The actions are consolidated;

(2) Mina Farr and Nader Farr are appointed as lead plaintiffs;

(3) Movants’ counsel of choice, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, is approved as lead

plaintiffs’ counsel. 

DATED: 2/25/2010

___________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05094-CW Document 15 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 5