Lapin v. Facebook, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Book v. Pronai Therapeutics, Inc.

    Case No. 5:16-cv-07408-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Defendants point out that some courts read the statute differently. See, e.g., Hung v. iDreamSky Tech. Ltd., No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO), 2016 WL 299034, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) ("[T]he Court adopts Defendants' interpretation of § 77v(a), and New York state courts lack jurisdiction over this covered class action. Because the New York court is not a court of competent jurisdiction under § 77v(a), the bar on removal does not apply, and the case is removable."); Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012) ("federal courts alone have jurisdiction to hear covered class actions raising 1933 Act claims" (quoting Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F.Supp. 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2009))). Defendants "respectfully disagree with the Court's decision in [Young] and with the other decisions granting remand of Securities Act class actions." Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Remand 2, Dkt. No. 25.

  2. Elec. Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.

    185 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (N.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the plain language of the statute required remand

    Clovis next relies on Lapin v. Facebook, Inc. , the only case in this district to have found that "federal courts alone have jurisdiction to hear covered class actions raising 1933 Act claims." No. C–12–3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 23, 2012) (quoting Knox v. Agria Corp. , 613 F.Supp.2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y.2009) ). Lapin determined that because "SLUSA amended § 77v to exempt such covered class actions from § 77v's concurrent jurisdiction provision" then only federal courts have jurisdiction to hear covered class actions raising Securities Act claims. 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (quoting Knox , 613 F.Supp.2d at 425 ). However, this reasoning "ignore[s] the express inclusion of the '[e]xcept as provided in [S]ection 77p(c)' language in Section 77v(a)'s provision on removal."

  3. Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc.

    Case No. 16-cv-00073-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The few cases Defendants cite in support of their position fall into this category of earlier cases, and the majority come from outside this district. See, e.g., Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012); Hung v. iDreamSky Tech. Ltd., No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO), 2016 WL 29903, at **3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016); Wunsch v. Am. Realty Capital Props., No. Civ. JFM-14-4007, 2015 WL 2183035 (D. Md Apr. 14, 2015); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 7831(PAC), 2009 WL 4067266, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009); Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Rovner v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. Civ. A 07-178 (FLW), 2007 WL 446658, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2007); Brody v. Homestore, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2003). "Since 2013, however, every court in this district to address the issue has granted remand."

  4. Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc.

    Case No. 15-cv-06323-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The few cases Defendants cite in support of their position fall into this category of earlier cases, and the majority come from outside this district. See, e.g., Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012); Hung v. iDreamSky Tech. Ltd., No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO), 2016 WL 29903, at **3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016); Wunsch v. Am. Realty Capital Props., No. Civ. JFM-14-4007, 2015 WL 2183035 (D. Md Apr. 14, 2015); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 7831(PAC), 2009 WL 4067266, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009); Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Rovner v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. Civ. A 07-178 (FLW), 2007 WL 446658, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2007); Brody v. Homestore, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2003). "Since 2013, however, every court in this district to address the issue has granted remand."

  5. Fraser v. Wuebbels

    Case No. 15-cv-06326-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The few cases Defendants cite in support of their position fall into this category of earlier cases, and the majority come from outside this district. See, e.g., Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012); Hung v. iDreamSky Tech. Ltd., No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO), 2016 WL 29903, at **3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016); Wunsch v. Am. Realty Capital Props., No. Civ. JFM-14-4007, 2015 WL 2183035 (D. Md Apr. 14, 2015); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 7831(PAC), 2009 WL 4067266, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009); Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Rovner v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. Civ. A 07-178 (FLW), 2007 WL 446658, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2007); Brody v. Homestore, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2003). "Since 2013, however, every court in this district to address the issue has granted remand."

  6. Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc.

    Case No. 15-cv-6328-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    The few cases Defendants cite in support of their position fall into this category of earlier cases, and the majority come from outside this district. See, e.g., Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012); Hung v. iDreamSky Tech. Ltd., No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO), 2016 WL 29903, at **3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016); Wunsch v. Am. Realty Capital Props., No. Civ. JFM-14-4007, 2015 WL 2183035 (D. Md Apr. 14, 2015); In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 7831(PAC), 2009 WL 4067266, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009); Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 419, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Rovner v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. Civ. A 07-178 (FLW), 2007 WL 446658, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2007); Brody v. Homestore, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2003). "Since 2013, however, every court in this district to address the issue has granted remand."

  7. Buelow v. Alibaba Grp. Holding Ltd.

    Case No. 15-cv-05179-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016)   Cited 5 times

    Earlier courts considered orders that had "not harmonized the jurisdictional and removal provisions of §§ 77v and 77p with the same effect." Young v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., 5:11-cv-05668 EJD, 2012 WL 851509, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2012) (granting remand); see also Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C-12-3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012) (denying remand). The few cases Defendants cite in support of their position fall into this category of earlier cases, and the majority come from outside this district.

  8. Niitsoo v. Alpha Natural Res., Inc.

    902 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting Lapin 's finding that Kircher was inapplicable because it dealt with claims brought under state law, and instead concluding that " § 77p(c) means exactly what the Supreme Court says it means in Kircher ," i.e. , that "subsection (b) must be read into subsection (c)"

    ), 2011 WL 6156945 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 7, 2011); W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Cardionet, Inc., No. 10cv711–L(NLS), 2011 WL 1099815 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 24, 2011); Unschuld v. Tri–S Sec. Corp., No. 1:06–CV–02931–JEC, 2007 WL 2729011 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 14, 2007); Irra v. Lazard Ltd., No. 05 CV 3388 (RJDRML), 2006 WL 2375472 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2006); In re Tyco Int'l, Ltd. Multidistrict Litig., 322 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.N.H.2004); Nauheim v. Interpublic Grp. of Cos., No. 02–C–9211, 2003 WL 1888843 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 16, 2003); Haw. Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund v. Calpine Corp., No. 03CV0714BTM(JFS), 2003 WL 23509312 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 27, 2003); In re Waste Mgmt., Inc. Sec. Litig., 194 F.Supp.2d 590 (S.D.Tex.2002). Many other courts have found that “as set forth in subsection (b)” does not modify the entire preceding clause, and as a result, any covered class action can be removed to federal court, where the state law claims will be dismissed and the federal law claims will be heard. See, e.g., Lapin v. Facebook, Inc., No. C–12–3195 MMC, 2012 WL 3647409 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 23, 2012); Rubin v. Pixelplus Co., No. 06–CV–2964 (ERK), 2007 WL 778485 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2007); Rovner v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. 07–178(FLW), 2007 WL 446658 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2007); Lowinger v. Johnston, No. 3:05CV316–H, 2005 WL 2592229 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2005); Brody v. Homestore, Inc., 240 F.Supp.2d 1122 (C.D.Cal.2003); Kulinski v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No. Civ.A.C–2–03–412, 2003 WL 24032299 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 19, 2003); Alkow v. TXU Corp., No. 3:02–CV–2738–K, 2003 WL 21056750 (N.D.Tex. May 8, 2003). To summarize, the disagreement is whether § 77p(c) only allows the removal of state law fraud class actions so that federal courts can ensure their dismissal, or whether § 77p(c) allows the removal of all covered securities class actions. I find this to be an accurate overview: