Robert S. Green (State Bar No. ) GREEN WELLING LLP Pine Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -1 0 [Proposed] Liaison Counse l Stuart L. Berman Sean M. Handler Robin Winchester SCHIFF RIN & BARROWAY, LL P 0 King of Prussia Roa d Radnor, PA 0 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () -0 Christopher Keller GOODKIND LABAT ON RUDO FF & SUC HAROW, LLP 0 Park Avenue New York, NY 0 Telephone: () 0-000 Facsimile : () -0 [Proposed] Lead Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES M. BAKER, on behalf of himself and ) all others similarly situated, ) Plaintiff, ) V., ) SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., ) JACK LAI, BING YEH, YASUSHI ) CHIKAGAMI, and ISAO NOJIMA, ) Defendants. ) Case No. C-0 --PJH THE SUNDSTROM GROUP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ALL RELATED ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES ; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date : Time : Judge : Dept : //0 :00 a.m. Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Courtroom, `' Floor
1 1 NOTICE OF MOTIO N PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May, 0, before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Court Judge, Courtroom, ' Floor, 0 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California,, the Sundstrom Group's Motion to Consolidate All Related Actions For All Purposes will be heard. MOTION Robert Sundstrom, Geoffrey Thacker, and Robert Bunting (collectively, the "Sundstrom Group") move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (a), to consolidate the following five related actions for all purposes, including but not limited to, pretrial and trial proceedings : ll j Abbreviated Case Name Case No. Date Filed Baker v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0--PJH /0 Grobler v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0 --PJH /0 Talmo v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0-0-PJH /0 Hunt v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0-0-PJH /0 DiCintio v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0-0-PJH //0 This motion is made on the grounds that consolidating these class actions will conserve judicial resources and promote judicial economy because these litigations have common legal, factual and evidentiary issues, common parties, and will involve common documentary an d deposition discovery. This motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith. ME MORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Between January, 0 and February, 0, five securities purchaser class action lawsuits were brought against Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Related Actions"). Each of these cases are related and their abbreviated captions are listed below : Abbreviated Case Name Case No. Date Filed
Baker v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0--PJH /0 Grobler v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0--PJH /0 Talmo v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0-0-PJH /0 Hunt v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. C-0-0-PJH /0 DiCintio v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc C-0-0-PJH //0 Because these lawsuits involve common legal and factual issues and name defendants in common, the Sundstrom Group requests the consolidation of these five actions into one action for all purposes including, but not limited to, pretrial proceedings and the appointment of lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of ("PSLRA" or "Reform Act") A. This Court Should Consolidate The Five Relate d Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Lawsuits For Purposes Of Efficiency The Related Actions involve class action claims on behalf of class members wh o purchased or otherwise acquired Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. ("Silicon Storage" or the "Company") securities during the class period of March, 0 through December, 0, inclusive. All of the Related Actions assert essentially similar and overlapping class claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Silicon Storage securities for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of (the "Exchange Act"). All of the Related Actions name essentially the same defendants and allege substantially overlapping and interrelated factual and legal issues. Consolidation is appropriate when, as here, there are actions involving common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (a) ; Johnson v. Celotex Corp., F. d 1, (d Cir. 0). Courts have recognized that class action shareholder suits are particularly suited for consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., because their unification expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication, avoids the harassment of parties and witnesses from inquiries in multiple proceedings, and minimizes the expenditure of time and money by all persons concerned. See In re Equity Funding of'amer. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. 1, (C.D. Cal. ) (citing Garber v. Randell, F. d, (d Cir. )). Consolidating multi-
shareholder class action suits not only simplifies pretrial and discovery motions, class action issues, and clerical and administrative management duties, but also reduces the confusion that may result from prosecuting related class action cases separately. Id. That test is met here. These Related Actions, therefore, should be consolidated. B. This Court Should Resolve The Consolidation Issue As A Prerequi site To Determining The Sandstrom Group's Pending Motion For Appointment A s Lead Plaintiff On December,, Congress enacted the PSLRA, which, among other things, provides for consolidation of actions. The Reform Act provides, in pertinent part : If more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this title has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes or for trial, the court shall not make the determination [of appointment of lead plaintiff under D(a)()(B)(i)until after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered. U.S.C. z-1(a)()(b)(ii) and U.S.C. u-(a)()(b)(ii). The Reform Act thus sets up a two-step process when more than one action on behalf of a class asserting common claims has been filed. That process requires the Court to first decide the consolidation issue and then, "[a]s soon as practicable" after the consolidation motion is determined, resolve the lead plaintiff issue. /l Id. I
I Consistent with that process, the Sundstrom Group requests the Court to decide the consolidation motion as soon as practicable. Such a determination is reasonable and warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. (a), given the typicality of the claims and commonality of the questions presented in the five complaints now pending in this District. Under the PSLRA, that decision is also prerequisite for the Court to address the motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs that was filed on March, 0. I Dated: March, 0. By : Respectfully submitted, GREE LLI G LLP Robert S. Green (State Bar No. ) Pine Street, r' Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () - [Proposed] Liaison Counsel Stuart L. Berman Sean M. Handler Robin Winchester SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP 0 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 0 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () -0 Christopher Keller GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW, LLP 0 Park Avenue New York, NY 0 Telephone: () 0-000 Facsimile : () -0 [Proposed] Lead Counsel