UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JONATHAN WILKOF, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL H. 

MOVENS, AND MUKUL RATHI 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12830-RHC-MJH 

CLASS ACTION 

DEANNA ADAMS, EUGENE DENEUTTE, 

COLLIN D. SMITH, and BARRY S. 

WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL 

MOVENS and MUKUL RATHI, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12900 

CLASS ACTION

____________________________________

 

S. Thomas Wienner (P29233) Joe Kendall 

Wienner & Gould, P.C. Hamilton Lindley 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kendall Law Group, LLP 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Rochester, MI 48307 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 

(248) 841-9400 Dallas, TX 75204 

 (214) 744-3000

______________________________________________________________________________ 

KEVIN KOZIATEK’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF 

LEAD PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 1 of 17
2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that proposed lead plaintiff Kevin Koziatek (“Koziatek”) will 

and hereby does move this Court, on a date and at such time as may be designated by the Court, 

at 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI 48226 for an order: (1) consolidating the related actions 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); (2) appointing Kevin Koziatek as lead plaintiff pursuant to the 

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B); and (3) approving 

Kevin Koziatek’s selection of Kendall Law Group as lead counsel and Wienner & Gould, P.C. as 

liaison counsel for the class. In support of this motion, Kevin Koziatek submits the 

accompanying Memorandum of Law and a [Proposed] Order.1

 

Dated: September 15, 2009 /s/ S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)

 Wienner & Gould, P.C. 

 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 

 Rochester, MI 48307 

 (248) 841-9400; Fax 652-2729 

 Primary E-Mail: twienner@wiennergould.com 

[Proposed] Liaison Counsel 

JOE KENDALL 

HAMILTON LINDLEY 

Kendall Law Group LLP 

3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 

Dallas, TX 75204 

Telephone: 214-744-3000 

Facsimile: 214-744-3015 

[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 

1 This motion has been filed pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A) and (B), as 

amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Per these guidelines, within 60 days after 

publication of the required notice, any member or members of the proposed class may apply to the Court to be 

appointed as lead plaintiff, whether or not they have previously filed a complaint in this action. Therefore, any 

potential party to the action is aware of the requirements for filing a lead plaintiff motion; however, due to the nature 

of the filing, counsel for Kevin Koziatek has no way of knowing who the competing lead plaintiff candidates are at 

this time. As a result, counsel for Kevin Koziatek have been unable to conference with opposing counsel as 

prescribed in L.R. 7.1(a) and respectfully requests relief from this requirement. 

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 2 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JONATHAN WILKOF, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL H. 

MOVENS, AND MUKUL RATHI 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12830-RHC-MJH 

CLASS ACTION 

DEANNA ADAMS, EUGENE DENEUTTE, 

COLLIN D. SMITH, and BARRY S. 

WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL 

MOVENS and MUKUL RATHI, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12900 

CLASS ACTION

____________________________________

 

S. Thomas Wienner (P29233) Joe Kendall 

Wienner & Gould, P.C. Hamilton Lindley 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kendall Law Group, LLP 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Rochester, MI 48307 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 

(248) 841-9400 Dallas, TX 75204 

 (214) 744-3000

______________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF 

KEVIN KOZIATEK’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF 

LEAD PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 3 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of Issues Pursuant to LR 7.1(c)(2) ............................................................................... iii 

Statement of Controlling Authority Pursuant to LR 7.1(c)(2)....................................................... iv 

I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................2 

III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................4 

A. The Actions Should Be Consolidated For All Purposes..........................................4 

B. Kevin Koziatek Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff..............................................5 

1. This Motion Is Timely ................................................................................6 

2. Kevin Koziatek Has the Largest Financial Interest 

in the Relief Sought by the Class.................................................................6 

3. Kevin Koziatek Otherwise Satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure..............................................................................6 

C. The Court Should Approve Kevin Koziatek’s Selection of Counsel......................8 

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9 

i

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 4 of 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page(s) 

In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 

75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996).............................................................................................6 

Bendzak v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 

240 F.R.D. 449 (S.D. Iowa 2007)........................................................................................3 

In re CMS Energy Sec. Litig., 

2002 WL 32817518 (E.D. Mich. 2002)...............................................................................3 

Haase v. GunnAllen Fin., Inc., 

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59153 (E.D. Mich. 2008)...............................................................5 

Schwartz v. TXU Corp. 

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27077 (N.D. Tex. 2005) ..............................................................7 

STATUTES 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(1)....................................................................................................................1 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)...............................................................................................................4 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)...........................................................................................................4 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)...........................................................................................................5 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii)......................................................................................................1, 2 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii).................................................................................................1, 2, 4 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc)...............................................................................................5 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).............................................................................................4 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) .....................................................................................................2, 6 

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.........................................................................................................................5, 8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) ...................................................................................................................1, 3 

ii

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 5 of 17
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PURSUANT TO LR 7.1(c)(2)

1. Is it appropriate under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for this Court to 

consolidate the above-captioned related actions that involve common questions of law and fact? 

Proposed Answer: Yes. 

2. Is Kevin Koziatek the lead plaintiff movant with the largest financial interest, and does he 

otherwise satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at this preliminary stage, 

thereby requiring his appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of its selection of Lead Counsel 

pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995? 

Proposed Answer: Yes. 

iii

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 6 of 17
iv

STATEMENT OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO LR 7.1(c)(2)

1. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs whether the above-captioned 

actions should be consolidated. Moreover, the PLSRA requires the Court to first decide whether 

to consolidate the above-captioned actions before appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. 

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). 

2. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995’s Lead Plaintiff provision, 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), governs the selection of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. 

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 7 of 17
Plaintiff Kevin Koziatek (“Koziatek”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in 

support of his motion for: (1) consolidation of the related actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

42(a); (2) appointment as lead plaintiff in the above-referenced action pursuant to the Private 

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4; and (3) approval of his 

selection of Kendall Law Group LLP (“Kendall”) as lead counsel and Wienner & Gould, P.C. 

(“W&G”) as liaison counsel for the class. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Presently pending in this district are two related securities class action lawsuits (the 

“Actions”) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Caraco 

Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. (“Caraco” or the “Company”) between May 28, 2008 and June 

25, 2009, inclusive (the “Class Period”), against Caraco and certain of its officers. 

CASE NAME CASE NO. CLASS PERIOD 

Wilkof v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, 

Ltd. et al. 

2:09-cv-12830-RHCMJH May 28, 2008 – 

June 25, 2009 

Adams, et al v. Caraco Pharmaceutical 

Laboratories, Ltd. et al. 

2:09-cv-12900-VARMKM June 10, 2008 – 

June 25, 2009 

These actions are brought pursuant to §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(“1934 Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 

Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. The PSLRA requires courts to resolve consolidation prior to 

appointing a lead plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). As soon as practicable after its 

decision on consolidation, the court “shall appoint the most adequate plaintiff as lead plaintiff for 

the consolidated actions.” Id. 

 Here, the Actions should be consolidated because they each involve substantially similar 

issues of law and fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). In addition, Kevin Koziatek should be 

appointed as lead plaintiff because he: (1) timely filed his motion; (2) to his counsel’s 

1

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 8 of 17
knowledge, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (3) will fairly 

and adequately represent the interests of the class. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Finally, 

Kevin Koziatek’s selection of Kendall Law Group LLP as lead counsel and Wienner & Gould, 

P.C. as liaison counsel for the class should be approved. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Caraco is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, 

and distribution of generic, prescription, and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals for wholesalers, 

distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores, and managed care providers in 

the United States and Puerto Rico. 

During the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the condition of Caraco’s business. 

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the Company did not adhere to current good 

manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). 

Subsequently, on June 25, 2009, the FDA issued a news release entitled ― “U.S. Marshals 

Seize Drug Products Manufactured by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd; FDA acts to prevent 

repeated drug quality problems.” The release stated in part: 

U.S. Marshals, at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, today 

seized drug products manufactured by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. 

(Caraco), at the company’s Michigan facilities in Detroit, Farmington Hills, and 

Wixom. The seizure also includes ingredients held at these same facilities. “The FDA 

is committed to taking enforcement action against firms that do not manufacture 

drugs in accordance with our good manufacturing practice requirements,” said Janet 

Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 

“Compliance with these standards prevents harm to the public.” 

This action follows Caraco’s continued failure to meet the FDA’s current 

Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) requirements, which assure the quality of 

manufactured drugs. Through this seizure, the FDA seeks to immediately stop the 

firm from further distributing drugs until there is assurance that the firm complies 

with good manufacturing requirements. 

Since January 2009, Caraco has initiated voluntary recalls of drug products to 

protect the public from potentially defective medications. The recalls involved 

manufacturing defects, including oversized tablets and possible formulation error. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 9 of 17
As a result of this disclosure, Caraco’s stock price dropped from $4.18 to $2.39 the next day. 

This decrease in Caraco’s stock price was a result of the artificial inflation caused by defendants’ 

misleading statements coming out of the stock price.

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Actions Should Be Consolidated for All Purposes 

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, . 

. . it may order all the actions consolidated . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Here, the Actions assert 

claims on behalf of purchasers of Caraco securities for alleged violations of the 1934 Act during 

substantially similar Class Periods.1 Each of the Actions name the Company and certain of its 

officers and/or directors as defendants and involve the same factual and legal issues, namely, 

whether plaintiffs purchased Caraco securities at artificially inflated prices as a result of 

defendants’ allegedly false and misleading statements, and whether defendants’ conduct violates 

§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. Thus, the Actions should be 

consolidated. In re CMS Energy Sec. Litig., 2002 WL 32817518, at *1 (E.D. Mich. 2002) 

(explaining that court consolidated numerous securities actions prior to ruling on lead plaintiff 

motions). 

B. Kevin Koziatek Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff 

The PSLRA establishes the procedure for the appointment of a lead plaintiff in “each 

private action arising under [the 1934 Act] that is brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to 

 1 As long as the factual allegations are virtually identical, minor differences among the class periods and 

named defendants are not sufficient to preclude consolidation. See, e.g., Bendzak v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 240 

F.R.D. 449, 451 (S.D. Iowa 2007) (explaining that “slight differences among the class periods proposed” do not 

preclude consolidation). 

3

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 10 of 17
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(1); see also 15 U.S.C. §78u4(a)(3)(B)(i). 

First, the pendency of the action must be publicized in a widely circulated national 

business-oriented publication or wire service not later than 20 days after filing of the first 

complaint. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). This notice advises class members of: (1) the pendency 

of the action; (2) the claims asserted therein; (3) the proposed class period; and (4) the right to 

move the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff within 60 days of publication of the notice. 

Here, notice was published on July 17, 2009, on Business Wire in connection with the filing of 

the first-filed action. See Ex. B.2

 

Next, the PSLRA provides that the Court shall adopt a presumption that the most 

adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that – 

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice . . .; 

(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. 

15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Kevin Koziatek meets each of these requirements and should 

therefore be appointed as lead plaintiff. 

1. This Motion Is Timely 

The notice published in this action informed class members that the deadline to move for 

appointment as lead plaintiff was 60 days from July 17, 2009, or September 15, 2009. See Ex. 

C; 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A). Kevin Koziatek, therefore, has timely filed his motion. Id. In 

 

2

 All exhibits are attached to the Index of Exhibits filed concurrently herewith. 

4

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 11 of 17
addition, Kevin Koziatek has submitted a sworn certification confirming his willingness and 

ability to serve as lead plaintiff. See Ex. A. Thus, Kevin Koziatek has complied with the 

PSLRA’s first requirement and is entitled to be considered for appointment as lead plaintiff. 

2. Kevin Koziatek Have the Largest Financial Interest in the Relief Sought by 

the Class 

During the Class Period, Kevin Koziatek lost more than $18,000 due to defendants’ 

misconduct. See Ex. A. To the best of his knowledge, there are no other applicants who have 

sought, or are seeking, appointment as lead plaintiff that have a larger financial interest. 

Therefore, Kevin Koziatek satisfy the PSLRA’s prerequisite of having the largest financial 

interest. 

3. Kevin Koziatek Otherwise Satisfies Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 

In addition to possessing the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, the 

lead plaintiff must also “otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). Of Rule 23(a)’s four prerequisites to 

class certification, only two – typicality and adequacy – are generally addressed at the lead 

plaintiff stage. See, e.g., Haase v. GunnAllen Fin., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59153, at *5-*6 

(E.D. Mich. 2008) (Cook, J.) (referencing typicality and adequacy requirements during lead 

plaintiff inquiry). 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “the claims or defenses of 

the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and [that] the 

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(a)(3)-(4). A claim is typical if “it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct 

that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the 

5

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 12 of 17
same legal theory.” In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1082 (6th Cir. 1996). Adequacy 

generally requires that “the representative must have common interests with unnamed members 

of the class,” and “it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests 

of the class through qualified counsel.” Id. at 1083. 

Kevin Koziatek satisfies these requirements because, just like all other class members, he 

purchased Caraco securities during the Class Period in reliance upon the alleged materially false 

and misleading statements issued by defendants and suffered damages thereby. See Ex. A; Am. 

Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d at 1082. Thus, Kevin Koziatek’s claims are typical of those of other 

class members since his claims and the claims of other class members arise out of the same 

course of events. 

Kevin Koziatek is also capable of working adequately in the capacity of lead plaintiff 

because there is no evidence of antagonism between Kevin Koziatek and the class. Am. Med. 

Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d at 1083. Additionally, as explained below, Kevin Koziatek’s proposed lead 

counsel is highly qualified, experienced and able to conduct this complex litigation in a 

professional manner. 

Thus, Kevin Koziatek satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for the purposes of 

this Motion. 

C. The Court Should Approve Kevin Koziatek’s Selection of Kendall Law 

Group as Lead Counsel 

The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain counsel, subject to 

this Court’s approval. See 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). This Court should not disturb the lead 

plaintiff’s choice of counsel unless it is necessary to “protect the interests of the class.” 15 

U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa). Kevin Koziatek has selected Kendall Law Group, LLP to 

serve as lead counsel and Wienner & Gould, P.C. to serve as liaison counsel. 

6

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 13 of 17
Kendall Law Group is actively engaged in the practice of complex litigation and has 

successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud class actions on behalf of injured investors. 

See Ex. C. Thus, the Court may be assured that in the event this motion is granted, the members 

of the class will receive the highest caliber of legal representation available from Kendall Law 

Group. See, Schwartz v. TXU Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27077, at *51 (N.D. Tex. 2005) 

(approving $149.75 million settlement with Joe Kendall as Co-Lead Counsel). In addition, 

Wienner & Gould is highly experienced in complex litigation and securities litigation matters. 

As one of Michigan’s most respected law firms Wienner & Gould is well qualified to represent 

the class as liaison counsel. See Ex. D. Accordingly, Kevin Koziatek’s selection of counsel 

should be approved. 

7

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 14 of 17
8

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Kevin Koziatek respectfully request that the Court: (1) 

consolidate the related actions; (2) appoint Kevin Koziatek as Lead Plaintiff; and (3) approve his 

selection of Kendall Law Group LLP to serve as Lead Counsel and Wienner Gould PC as 

Liaison Counsel for the class. 

Dated: September 15, 2009 /s/ S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)

 Wienner & Gould, P.C. 

 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 

 Rochester, MI 48307 

 (248) 841-9400; Fax 652-2729 

 Primary E-Mail: twienner@wiennergould.com 

[Proposed] Liaison Counsel 

JOE KENDALL 

HAMILTON LINDLEY 

Kendall Law Group LLP 

3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 

Dallas, TX 75204 

Telephone: 214-744-3000 

Facsimile: 214-744-3015 

[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 15 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JONATHAN WILKOF, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL H. 

MOVENS, AND MUKUL RATHI 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12830-RHC-MJH 

CLASS ACTION 

DEANNA ADAMS, EUGENE DENEUTTE, 

COLLIN D. SMITH, and BARRY S. 

WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD., DANIEL 

MOVENS and MUKUL RATHI, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12900 

CLASS ACTION

____________________________________

 

S. Thomas Wienner (P29233) Joe Kendall 

Wienner & Gould, P.C. Hamilton Lindley 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kendall Law Group, LLP 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Rochester, MI 48307 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 

(248) 841-9400 Dallas, TX 75204 

 (214) 744-3000

______________________________________________________________________________ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 16 of 17
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 15, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion 

and Memorandum of Law, and accompanying Index of Exhibits with the Clerk of the Court 

using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

E. Powell Miller epm@millerlawpc.com 

I hereby also certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the papers to the 

following non-ECF participants: 

Andrew P. Bos 

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. 

1150 Elijah McCoy Drive 

Detroit, MI 48202 

(313) 871-8400 

Lionel Z. Glancy 

Michael Goldberg 

Richard A. Mansikas 

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP 

1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

310-201-9150 

Howard G. Smith 

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 

3070 Bristol Pike, Ste. 112 

Bensalem, PA 19020 

215-638-4847 

Dated: September 15, 2009 /s/ S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)

 Wienner & Gould, P.C. 

 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350 

 Rochester, MI 48307 

 (248) 841-9400; Fax 652-2729 

 Primary E-Mail: twienner@wiennergould.com 

[Proposed] Liaison Counsel 

Case 2:09-cv-12900-VAR-MKM Document 10 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 17 of 17