Narrative Opinion Summary
In a consolidated securities class action against New Oriental Education Technology Group, Inc. (EDU), Julio Tardío filed a motion under Rule 60(b) seeking to alter the October 25, 2012, order that appointed the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme (MPS) as lead plaintiff and Grant Eisenhofer, P.A. as lead counsel. Tardío sought to be named co-lead plaintiff, have Faruqi Faruqi, LLP as co-lead counsel, and amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC). Alternatively, he requested severance of his claims due to the CAC’s exclusion of option contract sellers. The court denied his motion for co-lead plaintiff status, affirming MPS's role and holding that another party cannot assert claims omitted by the lead plaintiff. However, the court granted Tardío's request for severance to protect the claims of the options class he wished to represent, noting that consolidation is not mandatory under the PSLRA and that the statute of limitations for these claims was not tolled. The court ordered coordination between MPS and Tardío to prevent duplicative efforts, leaving the door open for possible trial consolidation post-discovery. Thus, Tardío's case was allowed to proceed separately, safeguarding the claims of the options class while maintaining the integrity of the larger consolidated action.
Legal Issues Addressed
Coordination and Case Management in Severed Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ordered coordination of discovery and case management between MPS and Tardío to prevent duplicative efforts and preserve judicial efficiency despite the severance.
Reasoning: The court ordered coordination of discovery and case management between MPS and Tardío to avoid duplicative efforts.
Lead Plaintiff Designation under PSLRAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reaffirmed the appointment of MPS as lead plaintiff, noting that Tardío did not contest MPS's adequacy to represent the class, and emphasized that MPS does not need to have standing for all claims to hold this position.
Reasoning: MPS was appointed lead plaintiff due to its significant financial stake... Tardío has not contested MPS's adequacy to represent the class.
Relief from Orders under Rule 60(b)(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tardío sought relief from the Stipulation Order under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows a court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies such relief. However, he failed to present compelling reasons for relief regarding the appointment of MPS as lead plaintiff.
Reasoning: Tardío filed a motion seeking relief from the Stipulation Order under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies such relief.
Severance of Actions in Class Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted severance of Tardío’s action from the consolidated securities action to protect the claims of the options class he intends to represent, as the lead plaintiff indicated a refusal to pursue these claims.
Reasoning: Ultimately, Tardío's action will be severed to protect the claims of the options class he intends to represent.
Statute of Limitations Tolling under American Pipesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the statute of limitations is tolled for class members upon class action commencement but resumes for claims excluded from a consolidated class action complaint.
Reasoning: Under American Pipe, class action commencement tolls the statute of limitations for all class members... the statute of limitations no longer tolls for that excluded subclass.