Schweiger v. Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-02768
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ofir Schweiger v. Ultra Clean Holdings, Judge Corley denied adding a named plaintiff and appointing additional class counsel.
The ruling affects Lead Plaintiff Mr. İlaslan, Anthony Marchitto, Levi & Korsinsky, The Rosen Law Firm, and the putative class. Mr. İlaslan remains the lead plaintiff, and The Rosen Law Firm remains lead counsel; Marchitto was not added as a named plaintiff and his firm was not appointed additional class counsel.
What happened
Ofir Schweiger v. Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc., et al. is a putative class action alleging that Ultra Clean Holdings and two individuals made materially false or misleading statements and omissions that inflated the company’s stock price.
The court had appointed Mr. İlaslan as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. Mr. İlaslan later asked to add Anthony Marchitto as a named plaintiff and Marchitto’s firm, Levi & Korsinsky, as additional class counsel.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied the motion, finding no good reason to add Marchitto and no good reason to appoint a second law firm, which would increase costs for the putative class. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Schweiger v. Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. · No. 3:25-cv-02768
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 9, 2025
Background
Ofir Schweiger brought a putative class action against Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc., and two individuals. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions that artificially inflated the company’s stock price, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), and related regulations.
Four putative class members sought appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their chosen lead counsel. After two withdrew and one filed a notice of non-opposition, the court considered one unopposed motion. The court found that Mr. İlaslan had made an initial showing that he was an adequate and typical class representative and appointed him as lead plaintiff, along with The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel.
Motion to Add a Named Plaintiff and Counsel
Lead Plaintiff Mr. İlaslan moved to add Anthony Marchitto as a named plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky as additional class counsel. Marchitto had previously sought appointment as lead plaintiff but withdrew that motion.
The court concluded that Lead Plaintiff had not shown a good reason to add Marchitto. The court noted that Lead Plaintiff did not identify any subclasses that Mr. İlaslan lacked standing to represent, and that Marchitto’s claims were described as based on the same legal theory and events as the class’s claims. The court also rejected the argument that adding Marchitto would ensure continuity of class representation, explaining that it could address any future issue with class representation then. The court stated that adding another named plaintiff would create confusion about who controlled the litigation and that only Mr. İlaslan controlled it.
The court also found no good reason to appoint Marchitto’s law firm as a second firm representing the putative class. It concluded that doing so would inevitably increase costs to the class and that Lead Plaintiff had not shown why the circumstances of this case warranted appointing additional counsel.
Disposition
The court denied Lead Plaintiff’s motion to add Marchitto as a named plaintiff. It also declined to appoint Marchitto’s counsel as additional class counsel. The court ruled without oral argument, vacated the October 16, 2025 hearing, and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 46 and 57.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.