On December 19, 2012, plaintiff Morad Ghodooshim filed this. class-action suit against Qiao Xing Mobile Communication Co.

Similar documents
Case 1:17-cv WHP Document 10 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 5 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case: 1:12-cv WAL-GWC Document #: 47 Filed: 03/06/13 Page 1 of 6 DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST.

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 63 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 13

In this securities class action suit filed against. Lockheed Martin Corporation and three Lockheed executives, the

Case 4:13-cv Document 23 Filed in TXSD on 06/24/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 1:12-cv NRB Document 6 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 2:15-cv JAK-AJW Document 26 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:233

Case 1:13-cv KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9

Plaintiff, 08 Civ (JGK) The plaintiffs, investors who purchased or otherwise. acquired American Depository Shares of the China-based solar

Case 1:15-cv JSR Document 144 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:14-cv WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 6:13-cv MHS Document 14 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv WHP Document 24 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 9 USDC SDNY - DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 4:18-cv JSW Document 18 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Case 1:13-cv DJC Document 44 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv NRB Document 20 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv CM Document Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 8:09-cv PJM Document 24 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MEMORANDUM OPINION

USDSSDNY - DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED:

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:14-cv JSR Document 623 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:09-cv RMB Document 16 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:12-cv NRB Document 12 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 5: 14cv01435BLF Document5l FDeclO8/11/14 Pagel of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv TPG Document 22 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:08-cv GAF-RC Document 57 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:14-cv JSR Document 461 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 13

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2

O r SAL. a C (Ei[EDON' CM I. BY u 4 AUG 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Proceedings :

Case 2:16-cv ER Document 55 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:08-cv RMB Document 24 Filed 05/12/2008 Page 1 of 15. x : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x

Plaintiff, - against - 09 Civ (DAB) ORDER. Plaintiff, - against - 09 Civ (DAB) ORDER. Plaintiff,

Case 6:13-cv MHS Document 19 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 204

Case 1:14-cv WHP Document 41 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:10-cv ER-SRF Document 824 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Defendants. X ROSIE L. BROOKS, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Civil Action No. Situated, Defendants. X

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

Case 3:16-cv RS Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv ER

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv RJS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO : MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, SECTION : "R"(5) INC., ET AL.

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETT S. Memorandum in Explanation August 7, 200 1

Case 2:05-cv SRC-CLW Document 992 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 65902

Case 1:10-cv DAB Document 47 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of against - 10 Civ (DAB) ORDER FUQI INTERNATIONAL, INC, et al.

In the Complaint in this case, filed August 3, 2009, the. Securities and Exchange Commission ( S.E.C. ) alleges, in stark

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. Case No. CIV M ORDER

Case 1:13-cv KBF Document 18 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Plaintiff, Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER. System ("Fulton County"), Wayne County Employees' Retirement System ("Wayne

_._..._------_._ _.._... _..._..._}(

YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION,

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/26/ :16 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2017 EXHIBIT C

Case 1:10-cv MEA Document 285 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC

Case 2:12-cv JFB-ETB Document 26 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 158 CV (JFB)(ETB)

Case 1:04-cv GBD-RLE Document 953 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 4

Case4:11-cv PJH Document65 Filed08/31/12 Page1 of 8

Case 1:14-cv JSR Document 58 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 7. Lead plaintiffs Joseph Ebin and Yeruchum Jenkins bring this

Case 1:17-cv FB-CLP Document 77 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1513

Case 1:17-cv LAP Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 9:15-cv JIC Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv SHS Document 183 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:14-cv RJS Document 67 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

Case 1:12-cv VM-KNF Document 74 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 29. : : Plaintiffs, : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 11 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:11-cv ABJ Document 60 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 1:12-cv VM-KNF Document 90 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:15-cv F

Case 1:16-cv MLW Document 91 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 2:09-cv DB Document 114 Filed 11/12/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 1:08-cv WHP Document 166 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 92 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 2:08-cv JSR Document 85 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:18-cv ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Case 7:12-cv KMK Document 177 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 7

considering appointing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

HEDMAN, GIBSON & COSTIGAN, P.C., Plaintiff, -against- TRI-TECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,

Case 1:09-cv JSR Document 55 Filed 01/04/2010 Page 1 of 6. x : : : : : : : : : x. The principal charge in this case is that defendant Bank of

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 1:14-cv SO Doc #: 50 Filed: 07/15/15 1 of 7. PageID #: 438 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv ER Document 72 Filed 12/27/18 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS JAMES M. GARFINKEL AND RALPH ESPOSITO AND

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

Case 1:14-cv GK Document 31 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 11

3:18-cv JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Case 1:04-md LAK-HBP Document 1636 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:14-cv RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2017 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Transcription:

Case 1:12-cv-09264-ER Document 23 Filed 05/21/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------x MOPJiJ GHODOOSHIM, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -v- QIAO XING MOBILE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, LTD., ZHI YANG WU, RUI LIN WU, DAVID LI, and KOK SEONG TAN, DefendantS. ----------------------------x JED S. RAKOFF, tj.s.d.j. hf NT 12 Civ. 9264 (JSR) MEMORANDUM ORDER On December 19, 2012, plaintiff Morad Ghodooshim filed this class-action suit against Qiao Xing Mobile Communication Co., Zhi Yang Wu, Rui Lin Wu, David Li, and Kok Seong Tan, alleging violations of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. 78j (b), Rule lob-s promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78t(a). Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), a plaintiff who commences a securities class action such as this one must, within twenty days of filing the action, publish a notice to the proposed class informing class members of their willingness and ability to serve as lead plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 (a) (3) (A) (i) ; see also id. 78u-4 (a) (3) (B) (1). Mr. Ghodooshim met this requirement by publishing a notice in Globe Newswire on the same day the Complaint was filed. See Ex. A to the Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Mot. by Morad Ghodooshim for Appointment as Lead P1. & Approval of Counsel ("Lead P1. Mot.") filed Feb. 19, 2013, ECF No. 9.

Case 1:12-cv-09264-ER Document 23 Filed 05/21/13 Page 2 of 5 On February 19, 2013, Mr. Ghodooshim moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. On the same day, another member of the proposed class, Ingmar Bueb, also moved to serve as lead plaintiff, but a week later withdrew his motion. On April 5, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Mr. Ghodooshim' s unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on April 12, 2013, the Court, by "bottom-line" Order, appointed Mr. Ghodooshim as lead plaintiff for the proposed class and approved his choice of counsel, the firm of Pomerantz Grossman Huff ord Dahlstrom & Gross LLP. This Memorandum explains the reasons for those decisions. Under the PSLRA, the Court "shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members." 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a) (3) (B) (1). The PSLRA requires a court to presume 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. Id. 78u-4(a) (3) (B) (iii). Here, Mr. Ghodooshim both filed the complaint and made a motion to serve as lead plaintiff, and it appears that he has the largest known financial stake in the relief sought by the class: he purchased 121,900 2

Case 1:12-cv-09264-ER Document 23 Filed 05/21/13 Page 3 of 5 shares of Qiao Xing Mobile, for a total of $434,214, and was left with 102,207 shares at the end of the class period, suffering a total loss of $389,470. See Lead P1. Mot. Ex. C. Thus, Mr. Ghodooshim satisfies the first two requirements of 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a) (3) (B) (iii). As to the third requirement, the Court found that Mr. Ghodooshim satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the April 5, 2013 hearing, the Court extensively questioned Mr. Ghodooshim about his ability to adequately represent the class as lead plaintiff. An Ohio resident and emeritus faculty member at Cuyahoga Community College, Mr. Ghodooshim explained to the Court that, after suffering significant losses on his shares of Qiao Xing Mobile, he approached various law firms about taking on his case. See Apr. 5, 2013 Hr'g Tr. Although Mr. Ghodooshini indicated that he did not have significant experience overseeing securities class actions, between his substantial losses and the initiative he showed in seeking out counsel, the Court believes that Mr. Ghodooshim has demonstrated that he has "a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy" on behalf of the class. Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 64 (N.D. Ill. 1986) Moreover, the Court has seen no basis to suggest that Mr. Ghodooshim's claims as a Qiao Xing Mobile shareholder are anything but typical of the class. See In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 50 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding Rule 23's typicality requirement to be satisfied at this stage where the proposed lead plaintiff's "claims and 3

Case 1:12-cv-09264-ER Document 23 Filed 05/21/13 Page 4 of 5 injuries arise from the same conduct from which the other class members' claims and injuries arise"). Accordingly, the Court granted Mr. Ghodooshim's motion to serve as lead plaintiff. With respect to plaintiff's choice of lead counsel, the PSLRA provides that the "most adequate 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). Here, Mr. Ghodooshim has requested that the firm he previously retained -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP -- serve as lead counsel. At the April 5, 2013 hearing, the court raised with counsel a question of whether counsel's retention agreement presented a problem under the New York Lawyer's code of Professional Responsibility, since counsel promised in its engagement letter with Mr. Ghodooshim that under no circumstances would he be responsible for the costs of this action. See DR 5-103 (2012) ("While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client, except that... [a] lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter..."). In response, plaintiff's counsel called to the court's attention several cases where district courts have held that this provision does not require recoupment of costs from the lead plaintiff in class actions, regardless of the outcome. See, e.g., In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 219 F.R.D. 267, 284 (5.D.N.Y. 2003). While the matter remains, in the Court's mind, not 4

Case 1:12-cv-09264-ER Document 23 Filed 05/21/13 Page 5 of 5 entirely free from doubt, nonetheless on the facts of this case, the Court is satisfied it need not reach the issue at this stage of the case. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court appointed Morad Ghodooshim to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed class and approved his choice of counsel, Pomerantz Grossman Huff ord Dahlstrom & Gross LLP. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close items number 5 and 8 on the docket of this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, NY may.o, 2013