Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-4581 - In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-4581 - In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation
June 5, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER for Consolidation, Appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and Approval of Selection of Co-Lead Counsel as to Case Nos. 16-cv-4581 (ADS)(SIL), 16-cv-4589 (ADS)(SIL) and 16-cv-4597 (ADS)(SIL). The above-captioned actions are consolidated for all purposes (the Consolidated Action). This Order (the Order) shall apply to the Consolidated Action and to each case that relates to the same subject matter that is subsequently filed in this Court or is transferred to this Court, and is consolidated with the Consolidated Action. A Master File is established for this proceeding. The Master File shall be Case No. 16-cv-04581. The Clerk shall file all pleadings in the Master File and note such filings on the Master Docket. Every pleading in the Consolidated Action shall have the following caption: see Order. Each new case that arises out of the subject matter of the Consolidated Action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action as further set forth herein. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs choice of counsel is approved, and accordingly, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Goldberg Law PC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, are approved as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(3)(B)(v) and 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). As previously ordered by the Court, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint within sixty days of the entry of this Order, and the Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within thirty days thereafter. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/5/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
January 11, 2018
PDF | More
L 3891701 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017); Kuriakose v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., 674 F. Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Westchester Putnam Heavy & Hwy Laborers Local 60, 08 Civ. 9528, 2009 WL 1285845 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2009). Plaintiffs have failed to establiMinute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke:Motion Hearing held on 1/11/2018. Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay, DE 82, is denied for the reasons set forth on the record. See Gruber v. Gilbertson, 16 CV 727, 2017 Wsh the necessary undue prejudice required to lift the stay. In the Courts view, the fact that Defendants motion papers on their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may make certain statements attacking the viability of the Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Complaint) by relying on statements outside the Complaint is irrelevant and fails to establish any prejudice whatsoever. The Court will address the motion to dismiss on the merits of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and nothing in the Defendants motion papers will prejudice Plaintiffs with respect to that analysis. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 1/11/2018. (Gandiosi, Kristin)