Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05303/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05303-2/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

1

 The Related Securities Actions are Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al., 06-04327 JW

(filed Jul. 14, 2006) and Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., 06-05303 JW (filed Aug. 29, 2006).

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

Robert L. Garber, on behalf of himself and

all other similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Juniper Networks, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04327 JW

Related Case No. C 06-05303 JW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND

APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND

LEAD COUNSEL

I. INTRODUCTION

There are currently two related securities fraud class actions (“Related Securities Actions”)

against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) and certain of its officers and directors pending before the

Court.1

 A number of motions have been filed to consolidate these two actions and to appoint lead

plaintiff and lead counsel. (See Docket Item Nos. 10, 15, 22, 28.) Subsequent to the filing of these

motions, all but one movant withdrew their applications for appointment as lead plaintiff. (See

Docket Item Nos. 41, 42, 57.) The only remaining applicant for lead plaintiff is the New York City

Pension Funds (the “NYC Funds.”) (See Docket Item No. 10.) The Court found it appropriate to

take these matters under submission without hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the papers

submitted to date, the Court ORDERS (1) consolidation of the securities class actions cases; (2)

Case 5:06-cv-05303-JW Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

NYC Funds appointed Lead Plaintiff; and (3) Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.

appointed Lead Counsel. 

II. BACKGROUND

The Related Securities Actions were filed on behalf of public investors who purchased the

securities of Juniper between approximately 2003 and 2006. Named as defendants are various

officers and directors of Juniper. On July 14, 2006, the first of the two Related Securities Actions,

Garber v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al., 06-04327 MJJ, was filed in the Northern District of

California. On August 29, 2006, the second action, Peters v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., 06-

05303 JW, was filed and assigned to the Court. On September 27, 2006, the Court found these two

actions were related to each other as well as to some earlier filed derivative actions that had been

brought on behalf of Juniper. (See Order Relating Cases, Docket Item No. 39.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Consolidation of the Related Securities Actions

A district court has broad discretion to consolidate actions involving “common issues of law

or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877

F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In exercising its broad discretion to order consolidation, a district

court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience,

delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. U.S.,743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

Having reviewed the complaints filed in both of the Related Securities Actions, the Court

finds the two actions name the same core defendants and allege the same factual events. 

Furthermore, both actions are brought pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Given the common issues of law

and fact involved in the Related Securities Actions, the Court finds it appropriate to consolidate

these cases.

B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the “PSLRA”) requires the court to appoint as

lead plaintiff “the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be

Case 5:06-cv-05303-JW Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires, among other things, that “the representative

parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

3

most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.” 15 U.S.C. §

78u-4(a)(3)(B)(I). The act creates a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the

person or group of persons that (i) either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to the

published notice; (ii) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief

sought; and (iii) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.2

 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Thus, under the PSLRA, the plaintiff most capable of

adequately representing the interests of the class members 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.” In re

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002).

The only movant remaining for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is the NYC Funds. According

to the evidence submitted in conjunction with its motion, the NYC Funds’ losses totaled $13.3

million using the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) methodology and $7.4 million calculating losses on a

last-in, first-out basis (“LIFO”). (See Declaration of Neil L. Selinger, Docket Item No. 11, Ex. 1.) 

Given the substantial losses endured by the NYC Funds and the lack of any competing applications

for lead plaintiff, the Court appoints NYC Funds as Lead Plaintiff.

C. Appointment of Lead Counsel

Under the PSLRA, the court may only approve or disapprove the lead plaintiff's choice of

counsel. Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 734. NYC Funds has moved the Court to appoint Lowey

Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. as lead counsel. There has been no objection filed with the

Court. Accordingly, the Court appoints Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. as Lead

Counsel. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS (1) consolidation of the securities class actions cases; (2) NYC Funds

appointed Lead Plaintiff; and (3) Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. appointed Lead

Counsel. 

Case 5:06-cv-05303-JW Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

The Clerk shall consolidate these actions. Case No. C 06-04327 JW is the earlier filed action

and therefore, shall be the lead case. All future filings shall be filed in C 06-04327 JW and bear the

caption: "In Re Juniper Securities Litigation."

Lead Plaintiff shall file a Consolidated Complaint no later than January 12, 2007. The

deadline for Defendants to file a motion to dismiss is March 12, 2007. Oppositions and replies are

due April 13, 2007 and May 4, 2007 respectively. A hearing on Defendants’ anticipated motion is

scheduled for May 21, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall coordinate service with the parties in In

re Juniper Derivative Actions to ensure that everyone receives copies, electronically or otherwise, of

the papers filed in each action. 

Dated: November 20, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05303-JW Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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:

Alfred Glenn Yates yateslaw@aol.com

Jason T. Baker jbaker@alexanderlaw.com

Joni L. Ostler jostler@wsgr.com

Joseph M. Barton jmb@gbcslaw.com

Mark C. Molumphy mmolumphy@cpsmlaw.com

Michael M. Goldberg info@glancylaw.com

Patrice L. Bishop service@ssbla.com

Peter Arthur Binkow info@glancylaw.com

Richard Bemporad rbemporad@ldbs.com

Willem F. Jonckheer wjonckheer@schubert-reed.com

William M. Audet waudet@alexanderlaw.com

Dated: November 20, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-05303-JW Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 5 of 5