Perez v. Target Corporation
- Tony Leung
- 0:23-cv-00769
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Perez v. Target, Judge Leung granted in part and denied in part an unopposed motion changing lead plaintiff, counsel, and deadlines.
The Terry and Diane Van Der Tuuk Living Trust, Gary Schaedel, the proposed class of Target investors, Target Corporation and the individual defendants, and the law firms serving as lead and liaison counsel.
What happened
Perez v. Target Corporation is a securities class action involving Target investors. After the proposed class period was narrowed to March 1 through May 17, 2022, Gary Schaedel acknowledged that he had not bought Target stock during that period and could not represent that proposed class.
The Terry and Diane Van Der Tuuk Living Trust had the next-largest stated losses among the relevant investors and was not opposed by the other investors who had bought stock during the narrowed period. The Trust asked to replace Schaedel as lead plaintiff, replace lead counsel, and extend case deadlines.
Judge Tony N. Leung granted in part and denied in part the motion. He appointed the Trust as lead plaintiff, approved Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel, kept Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as liaison counsel, and set new deadlines for an amended complaint and responses.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Target Corporation · No. 0:23-cv-00769
- Tony Leung
- Nov. 13, 2023
Background
This putative securities class action was brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court had previously appointed Gary Schaedel as lead plaintiff because it found that he had the largest financial interest in the relief sought and was the most adequate plaintiff. The Court had also approved Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as lead counsel.
After investigating the claims for an amended complaint, Schaedel and Wolf Haldenstein determined that the proposed class period should be narrowed to March 1 through May 17, 2022. Schaedel had not purchased Target stock during that revised period and acknowledged that he would not have standing to represent a class limited to that period.
The Terry and Diane Van Der Tuuk Living Trust had previously sought appointment as lead plaintiff and alleged $126,041.31 in losses connected with Target stock. The opinion states that the Trust had the second-largest losses after Schaedel. John W. Zlatic and Chester Zoll were the only other movants identified as having purchased Target stock during the revised period, and they did not dispute that the Trust was the presumptive lead plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff and Counsel
Under the Act, the court must appoint the class member most capable of adequately representing the class. The Court explained that it has a continuing duty to reconsider leadership roles if concerns arise about adequate representation.
The Court found that the Trust’s claims were typical of the proposed class’s claims. It also found that the Trust would fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests. The Trust understood its responsibilities, including directing the litigation, staying informed about important developments, acting in the class’s best interests, and providing testimony at a deposition or trial if necessary. The Court found no conflict between the Trust and the proposed class and no unique defenses applicable to the Trust.
The Court therefore substituted the Trust for Schaedel and appointed the Trust as lead plaintiff. It approved the Trust’s selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel based on the firm’s experience in securities litigation. Levi & Korsinsky replaced Wolf Haldenstein as lead counsel, and Wolf Haldenstein was designated liaison counsel.
Deadlines and Disposition
The Trust also requested more time to become familiar with the investigation and prepare an amended complaint. The Court granted an extension and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 15, 2023. Defendants were ordered to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond by March 8, 2024. If a motion to dismiss was filed, the order set April 19, 2024, for the plaintiff’s opposition and May 31, 2024, for defendants’ reply. Any motion to dismiss was scheduled for a June 14, 2024 hearing before Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz.
The order states that the Unopposed Motion to Substitute Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and for Extension of Time was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The order does not separately identify which specific requested relief was denied. It also cautioned that no further extensions would be granted.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.