Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:13-cv-07060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited, Judge McMahon denied Steve Zipperstein’s reconsideration motion, holding disputed scienter evidence remains for the jury.
Steve Zipperstein’s request for judgment in his favor was denied, and the disputed question of his scienter remains for a jury in the underlying case.
What happened
Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited is a securities case brought by Marvin Pearlstein on behalf of himself and similarly situated people against Blackberry Limited and others. Steve Zipperstein asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to grant the defendants summary judgment, which would have ended the claims against him at that stage.
Zipperstein argued that the court had overlooked evidence showing he acted in good faith and that there was not enough evidence for a jury to find that he acted with the required knowledge or intent. The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration, which generally requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion. She said the court had not overlooked the evidence and that conflicting evidence created a disputed issue of fact about Zipperstein’s scienter. The court stated that the jury would make the final decision on that question.
The detailed version
- Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited · No. 1:13-cv-07060
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
Marvin Pearlstein sued Blackberry Limited, formerly known as Research in Motion Limited, and defendants Thorsten Heins, Brian Bidulka, and Steve Zipperstein. The opinion concerns only Steve Zipperstein’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is a ruling entered without a trial when the court determines that the evidence does not present a legally sufficient dispute requiring a jury. Zipperstein asked the court to reconsider its refusal to grant summary judgment in his favor. Specifically, he argued that the evidence could not support a finding that he acted with scienter, meaning the required knowledge or intent.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court stated that reconsideration is appropriate only when there has been a change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or the court must correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. The standard is strict, and a motion for reconsideration cannot be used simply to argue again about an issue the court already decided.
Zipperstein argued that the court had overlooked evidence showing that he was a distinguished professional who acted in good faith. The court rejected that argument. It said it had considered the evidence, and that other evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
The opinion gives as an example evidence that Zipperstein drafted Blackberry’s denial of a report by Detwiler. That denial stated that return rates for Z10 devices were below forecasts. The plaintiffs pointed to evidence that Zipperstein had previously received a presentation stating that the global return rate for the Z10 was higher than the rate for the Blackberry 7, above target levels, and trending upward.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Zipperstein’s motion for reconsideration. The court held that whether Zipperstein acted with scienter was a material disputed issue of fact and stated that the jury would make the ultimate determination. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 574. The opinion does not state that the court entered judgment for either side on the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.