Opinion ID: 781984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicability of the PSLRA

Text: 36 Finally, the non-settling defendants argue that the bar orders must be mutual for the claims of the nineteen plaintiffs who were added by amendment to the complaint after the effective date of the PSLRA. The district court properly rejected this argument. 37 Section 108 of the PSLRA provides that the PSLRA's provisions relating to settlement shall not affect or apply to any private action [brought under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934] commenced before and pending on December 22, 1995. 109 Stat. 737, 758 (1995). This statutory language refers to actions, not to claims. 9 We agree with the district court's conclusion that the action here was commenced when the complaint was filed on January 23, 1995. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 3 (A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.). Amending the complaint, even to add additional plaintiffs, did not create a new action. See McKowan Lowe & Co. Ltd. v. Jasmine, Ltd., 976 F.Supp. 293, 297 (D.N.J.1997). In the absence of any indication to the contrary, we doubt that Congress intended that courts would apply different sets of substantive and procedural rules to groups of plaintiffs asserting identical claims in a single action, depending on when those plaintiffs were added to the complaint. The district court's ruling is therefore affirmed on this issue.