1 Lionel Z. Glancy (#134180) 2 Michael Goldberg (# 188669) ,..., ,.,., ;: :•: w -1:~ 0 r-~: rq 2~ ~ ~L~~ n Robert V. Prongay (#270796) 3
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 4 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
:p.r:·::::; N
-
. :~ ' -·, ~-.. -~ --4 ·~· X~ -o ~ ·::~ r:; ::.:: 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 6 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 7 Email: info@glancylaw.com 8 Jeremy A. Lieberman 9 Lesley F. Portnoy POMERANIZGROSSMANHUFFORD 10 DAHLS1ROM& GROSS LLP 11 600 Third A venue, 20th Floor12 New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100 13 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 14 15 t.."': c~ --( ~-g ~= ~~ - i Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANIZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLS1ROM& GROSSLLP ':2 CJ1 Ul
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17
1s MARK ROBERTI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
19 Situated, 20 21 Plaintiff, 22 v. 23
OSI SYSTEMS, INC., DEEP AK 24
CHOPRA, and ALAN I. EDRICK, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 C ASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
.,.,
r -1'1 01 Plaintiff Mark Roberti ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of all other 2
3
persons similarly situated, by his undersigned attorneys, for his complaint against 4 defendants, alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to himself 5
and his own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, 6
7 inter alia, the investigation conducted by and through his attorneys, which 8
included, among other things, a review of the defendants' public documents, 9
10 conference calls and announcements made by defendants, United States Securities
11 and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings, wire and press releases published by
12
and regarding OSI- Systems, Inc. ("OSI Systems" or the "Company"), analysts'
13
14 reports and advisories about the Company, and information readily obtainable on 15
the Internet. 16
17 NATURE OF THE ACTION
18 1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting 19
of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired OSI
20
21 Systems securities between January 24, 2012 and December 6, 2013, both dates
22
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' 23
24 violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under § 1 O(b) of 25 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 26
promulgated thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials. 27
28
1
1
2. OSI Systems produces medical monitoring and anesthesia systems;
2
3 security and inspection systems; and lasers, optics, and optoelectronic
4 components. The Company's products include blood pressure monitors,
5
anesthesia machines and hemoglobin saturation monitors; systems for inspecting 6
7 baggage, people, and vehicles; and lasers, lenses, prisms, and microelectronic 8
components. 9
10 3. One of the Company's largest customers is the United States
11 Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration
12
("TSA"), who use the Company's security imaging products in administering
13
14 mandatory security checkpoints and passenger screenings in U.S. airports.
15
4. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and 16
17 misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
18
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading 19
20 statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company manipulated operational
21 test of its Advanced Imaging Technology by selectively picking the best sensors
22
causing the test not to be representative of the scanners already deployed at 23
24 airports; (ii) the Company's products raised strong privacy concerns and were 25
subject to disqualification for use in airport security checkpoints; (iii) the 26
27 Company manufactured its products with parts that directly violated contracts 28 with the TSA, thereby risking cancellation of the contracts; and, (iv) as a result of
1 the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and
2
3 misleading at all relevant times.
4 5. On November 14, 2012, after the market closed, vanous news
5
sources, including Bloomberg News reported that a key congressman disclosed the
6
7 Company may have committed fraud by "knowingly manipulating" the results of 8
an operational test in connection with the Company's Advanced Imaging
9
10 Technology ("AIT"), otherwise commonly known as body scanners. Moreover,
11 Bloomberg News cited to an executive vice president of the Company who
12
revealed that its Rapiscan unit had received a so-called "show cause" letter from
13
14 the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") on November 9, 2012 15
seeking detailed information about the testing of technology used in its body
16
17 scanners. 18
6. On this news, OSI Systems shares declined $21.40 per share or 28%,
19 20
to close at $54.89 per share on November 15, 2012.
21 7. On January 22, 2013, the TSA reported that it had ended its contract
22
with the Company, and that furthermore OSI Systems will have to bear the costs
23
24 of removing all Rapiscan full body scanners from airports, because TSA 25
administrators concluded the company could not meet a congressional deadline to
26
27 produce generic passenger images. 28
-1 8. On this news, the Company's shares fell $14.03 per share to $57.33, 2
3 a one day decline of over 19%.
4 9. On May 20, 2013, the Company reported that the Department of
5
Homeland Security had issued a "notice of proposed debarment" to OSI Systems, 6
7 for the purpose of barring further use of the Company's full-body Rapiscan full
8
body scanners. The reasoning behind the proposed bar were concerns that the 9
10 scanners revealed naked images of travelers bodies.
11 10. On this news, OSI Systems shares fell $8.05 per share to $53.25, a 12
decline of over 13o/o. 13
14 11. Then, on December 6, 2013, the United States Transportation
15
Security Administration canceled a $60 million deal for the company's carry-on 16
17 baggage screening equipment, with the possibility of a future ban on contracting 18 with the Department of Homeland Security. The reason for the canceled contract 19
20
and future ban is that a part in the company's baggage scanning machine was 21 manufactured in China, violating TSA security policies.
22
12. On this news, the Company's shares fell $21.69 per share to $43.63,
23
24 a one day decline of over 33% per share on volume of nearly 8 million shares. 25
13. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the 26
27 precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and 28 other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
14. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 1 O(b)
3
4 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 5
promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5).
6
7 15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 8 pursuant to§ 27 ofthe Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 9
16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to §27 of the Exchange Act, 10
11 15 U.S.C. §78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as OSI Systems' principal place of
12
business is located within this District. 13
14 17. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this 15 Complaint, defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities 16
of interstate commerce, including but not limited to, the United States mail, 17
18 interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national securities 19
exchange. 20
21 PARTIES
22 18. Plaintiff, as set forth in the attached Certification, acquired OSI 23
Systems securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has 24
25 been damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. 26
19. Defendant OSI Systems is a Delaware corporation with principal
27
28 executive offices located at 12525 Chadron Avenue, Hawthorne, CA 90250. OSI
5
1 Systems' common stock trades on the NASDAQ Stock Market ("NASDAQ") 2
3 under the ticker symbol "OSIS."
4 20. Defendant Deepak Chopra ("Chopra") was, at all relevant times, the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer.
21. Defendant Alan I. Edrick ("Edrick") was, at all relevant times, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President.
22. The defendants referenced above in ~~ 20 and 21 are sometimes referred to herein as the "Individual Defendants."
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background
23. OSI Systems is a vertically integrated provider of specialized electronic systems and components that attempt to meet needs in the homeland security, healthcare, defense, and aerospace industries.
Materially False and Misleading Statements Issued During the Class Period
24. On January 24, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
24 financial results for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. Specifically, the
25
Company reported net income of $12 million, or $0.61 diluted earnings per share
26
27 ("EPS"), and revenue of$188 million as compared to net income of$9 million, or 28
1 25. On January 25, 2012, OSI Systems filed a quarterly report for the
2 3
period ended December 31, 2011 on Form 1 0-Q with the SEC, which was signed
4 by Defendants Chopra and Edrick and reiterated the Company's previously
5
In addition, the Form 1 0-Q contained signed announced financial results.
6
7 certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants 8
Chopra and Edrick stating that the information contained in the Form 1 0-Q was 9
10 accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Company's internal control 11 over financial reporting.
12
26. On April 24, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing 13
14 financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. For the quarter, the
15
Company reported net income of $13 million, or $0.62 diluted EPS, and revenue 16
17 of $208 million as compared to net income of $9 million, or $0.45 diluted EPS, 18 and revenue of $17 5 million for the same period a year ago.
19 20
27. On April 25, 2012, OSI Systems filed a quarterly report for the
21 period ended March 31, 2012 on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which was signed by
22
Defendants Chopra and Edrick, and reiterated the Company's previously 23
24 announced financial results. In addition, the Form 1 0-Q contained signed
25
certifications pursuant to SOX by Defendants Chopra and Edrick stating that the 26
27 information contained in the Form 1 0-Q was accurate and disclosed any material
28 changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
7-1 28. On August 9, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
2
3
financial results for year ended June 30, 2012. For the quarter, the Company 4 reported net income of $16 million, or $0.78 diluted EPS, and revenue of $235
5
million as compared to net income of $12 million, or $0.61 diluted EPS, and
6
7 revenue of $183 million for the same period a year ago. For the year, the
8
Company reported net income of $46 million, or $2.24 diluted EPS, and revenue
9
10 of $793 million as compared to net income of $33 million, or $1.71 diluted EPS,
11 and revenue of $656 million for the same period a year ago.
12
29. , On August 13, 2012, OSI Systems filed an annual report for the
13
14 period ended June 30, 2012 on Form 10-K with the SEC, which was signed by, 15
among others, Defendants Chopra and Edrick and reiterated the Company's 16
17 previously announced financial results. In addition, the Form 1 0-K contained 18 signed certifications pursuant to SOX by Defendants Chopra and Edrick stating 19
that the information contained in the Form 1 0-Q was accurate and disclosed any 20
21 material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
22
30. On October 23, 2012, the Company issued a press release
23
24 announcmg financial results for quarter ended September 30, 2012. For the
25 quarter, the Company reported net income of $6 million, or $0.31 diluted EPS, 26
27 and revenue of $182 million, as compared to net income of $5 million, or $0.24 28 diluted EPS, and revenue of $161 million for the same period a year ago.
1 31. On October 24, 2012, OSI Systems filed a quarterly report for the 2
3
period ended September 30, 2012 on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which was signed
4 by Defendants Chopra and Edrick and reiterated the Company's previously
5
In addition, the Form 1 0-Q contained signed announced financial results.
6
7 certifications pursuant to SOX by Defendants Chopra and Edrick stating that the
8
information contained in the Form 1 0-Q was accurate and disclosed any material
9
10 changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
11 32. The statements referenced in ~~ 24-31 above were materially false
12
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
13
14 following adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
15
disregarded by them, including that: (i) the Company manipulated operational test
16
17 of its Advanced Imaging Technology by selectively picking the best sensors 18 causing the test not to be representative of the scanners already deployed at 19
20
airports; (ii) the Company's products raised strong privacy concerns and were
21 subject to disqualification for use in airport security checkpoints; (iii) the 22
Company manufactured its products with parts that directly violated contracts
23
24 with the TSA, thereby risking cancellation of the contracts; and, (iv) as a result of 25
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and
26
27 misleading at all relevant times.
28
9
1 The Truth Slowly Emerges
2
33. On November 14, 2012, after the market closed, Bloomberg News
3
4 disclosed that Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Transportation
5
Security Subcommittee sent a letter dated November 13, 2012 to Transportation 6
7 Securities Administration chief John Pistol saying that a supplier of passenger-8 scanning machines in United States airports "may have attempted to defraud the 9
government by knowingly manipulating an operational test" by falsifying tests of
10
11 software intended to stop the machines from recording graphic images of 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
travelers. The article by Bloomberg News further disclosed the following m relevant part:
"At no time did Rapiscan falsify test data or any information related to this technology or the test," Peter Kant, an executive vice president with the company, said in an interyiew.
If wrongdoing is proven, Rapiscan could face fines, prison terms and a ban on government contracting, said Dan Gordon, former head of federal procurement for President Barack Obama's administration.
"Fake test results are incredibly serious," said Gordon, now a dean at George Washington University Law School in Washington. "Every false statement is a criminal act, sending someone in that company to jail."
***
While Rogers' letter doesn't identify the company, his spokesman, Shea Snider, confirmed in an e-mail that he was referring to Rapiscan.
Kant said Rapiscan received a so-called show-cause letter from the TSA on Nov. 9 seeking detailed information about the testing of technology used in the machines.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rapiscan became aware of an issue related to software under development months ago and promptly notified the TSA, Kant said. The Company is fully cooperating with the agency's investigation, which doesn't relate to software that detects anomalies on passengers' bodies, Kant said. Passenger safety was never affected, he said.
Show-cause letters are sent when the government believes a contractor isn't complying with terms, said Gordon, the former federal procurement administrator. It's a last chance for the company to demonstrate it hasn't violated the contract, he said.
9 34. On November 15, 2012, the Company responded by disclosing the
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
following in relevant part:
OSI Systems, Inc., a vertically-integrated provider of specialized electronics and services, announced today that on November 9, 2012 Rapiscan Systems, its Security division, was delivered a show cause letter from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The letter, which pertains to a privacy system Rapiscan was developing under contract for the TSA, alleges that Rapiscan did not disclose issues related to the development process in a timely or complete manner. Contrary to some press reports, Rapiscan did not falsify test data; in fact, TSA testimony to Congress today confirms that this was at all times a government controlled test and that Rapiscan could not have manipulated any test data.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that Rapiscan delivered for testing the exact configuration previously disclosed to TSA and which TSA had approved.
"At no time did Rapiscan Systems falsify test data or engage in any fraudulent conduct," OSI Systems President and CEO, Deepak Chopra, commented. "We take the matter very seriously and are fully cooperating with the TSA during this process."
2 6 3 5. On this news, OSI Systems stock dropped $21.40 per share or nearly
27
28%, to close at $54.89 per share on November 15, 2012.
28
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
36. On November 16, 2012, an analyst at Benchmark wrote a note stating the following in relevant part:
While we strongly agree that the company did not and could not have manipulated any test data, due to the fact that the TSA was in control of the product for the entirety of testing, it appears the company may have made some "grey area" changes to the product that delivered for testing. As it turns out, the [Automated Threat Recognition] software tested by TSA this summer required OSI's "photo detectors" to have a minimal amount of what they call "drift" in order to pass through the testing properly. When manufactured not all these "photo detector" components have the same amount of "drift," with some having more than others; however, this was not a problem in the AIT machines whose more revealing output images would be viewed by a human. The problem was, the computerized ATR software required detectors with minimal "drift," so to solve this OSI simply manually selected the best "photo detectors" that came off the manufacturing line to put in the three AIT units sent for testing. These scanners passed the testing, but when TSA wanted to fully deploy the new ATR software, it was told that all the 250 deployed OSI scanners would need to be upgraded to "minimal drift" photo detectors (or retested with software that could work with lower-quality detectors). So, while the headline that OSI "faked" a body scanner test is false, it does appear that the company "cherry picked" sensors that made the test not representative of the scanners currently deployed at airports. We understand why TSA would be upset with this, particularly if not informed of the difference between the test units and the overall deployed inventory in a timely fashion, and hypothesize the dispute largely comes from the sensors having the same "SKU" regardless of drift, resulting in a bit of a gray area change,
. .
m ourvtew.
37. On January 22, 2013, the TSA reported that it had ended its software contract with the Company, and that furthermore OSI Systems will have to bear
2 6 the costs of removing all the Rapiscan full body scanners from airports, because 27
TSA administrators concluded the company couldn't meet a congressional
28
1 38. On this news, the Company's shares fell $14.03 per share to $57.33, 2
3 a one day decline of over 19%.
4 39. Later, on May 20, 2013, the Company reported that the Department 5
of Homeland Security had issued a "notice of proposed debarment" to OSI
6
7 Systems, for the purpose of barring further use of the Company's Rapiscan full 8
body scanners. The reasoning behind the proposed bar were concerns that the
9
10 scanners revealed naked images of travelers' bodies.
11 40. OSI Systems shares fell $8.05 per share to $53.25, a decline of over 12
13%, after this news was released.
13
14 41. Thereafter, on December 6, 2013, the United States Transportation 15
Security Administration canceled a $60 million deal for the company's carry-on
16
17 baggage screening equipment, and indicated that the Company may face a future
18 ban on contracting with the Department of Homeland Security. The reason for the 19
canceled contract and future ban is that a part in the company's baggage scanning
20
21 machine was manufactured in China, against TSA security policies.
22
42. On this news the Company's shares fell $21.69 per share to $43.63, a
23
24 one day decline of over 33% per share on volume of nearly 8 million shares.
25 26
27
28
-
1 PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
2
43. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule 3
4 of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b )(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those
5
who purchased or otherwise acquired OSI Systems securities during the Class
6
7 Period (the "Class"); and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are
8 defendants herein, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times,
9
members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
10
11 successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling 12
interest. 13
14 44. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all 15 members is impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, OSI Systems securities 16
17
were actively traded on the NASDAQ. While the exact number of Class members 18 is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only through 19
appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of 20
21 members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class 22
may be identified from records maintained by OSI Systems or its transfer agent
23
24 and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of
25 notice similar to that customarily used in securities class actions. 26
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
45. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all members of the Class are similarly affected by defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of federal law that is complained of herein.
46. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class.
4 7. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
• whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants' acts as alleged herein;
• whether statements made by defendants to the investing public during the Class Period misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and management of OSI Systems;
• whether the Individual Defendants caused OSI Systems to issue false and misleading financial statements during the Class Period; • whether defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false
and misleading financial statements;
• whether the prices of OSI Systems secunt1es during the Class Period were artificially inflated because of the defendants' conduct complained of herein; and
• whether the members of the Glass have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.
15
1 48. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair
2
3
and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is 4 impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
49. Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance established by the fraud-on-the-market doctrine in that:
• defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts during the Class Period;
• the omissions and misrepresentations were material; • OSI Systems securities are traded in an efficient market;
• the Company's shares were liquid and traded with moderate to heavy volume during the Class Period;
• the Company traded on the NASDAQ and was covered by multiple analysts;
• the misrepresentations and om1sswns alleged would tend to induce a reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the Company's securities; and
• Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased, acquired and/or sold OSI Systems securities between the time the defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented material facts and the time the true facts were disclosed, without knowledge of the omitted or misrepresented facts.
1 50. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are
2
3 entitled to a presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market.
4 51. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the presumption of reliance established by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 92 S. Ct. 2430 (1972), as Defendants omitted material information in their Class Period statements in violation of a duty to disclose such information, as detailed above.
COUNT I
(Against All Defendants For Violations of
Section lO(b) And Rule lOb-S Promulgated Thereunder)
52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if fully set forth herein.
53. This Count is asserted against defendants and is based upon Section lO(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule lOb-5 promulgated
20 thereunder by the SEC.
21
54. During the Class Period, defendants engaged in a plan, scheme,
22
23 conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly
24 engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as
25
26
a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made
27 various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts 28
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances -
1 under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and
2
artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such
3
4 scheme was intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the
5
investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein;
6
7 (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of OSI Systems securities;
8
and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase or otherwise
9
10 acquire OSI Systems securities and options at artificially inflated prices. In
11 furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct, defendants, and
12
each of them, took the actions set forth herein.
13
14 55. Pursuant to the above plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of
15
conduct, each of the defendants participated directly or indirectly m the
16
17 preparation and/or issuance of the quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press
18 releases and other statements and documents described above, including
19
statements made to securities analysts and the media that were designed to
20
21 influence the market for OSI Systems securities. Such reports, filings, releases
22
and statements were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose
23
24 material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about OSI Systems'
25
finances and business prospects.
26
27 56. By virtue of their positions at OSI Systems, defendants had actual
1 omissions alleged herein and intended thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the other
2
members of the Class, or, in the alternative, defendants acted with reckless 3
4 disregard for the truth in that they failed or refused to ascertain and disclose such
5
facts as would reveal the materially false and misleading nature of the statements 6
7 made, although such facts were readily available to defendants. Said acts and
8
omissions of defendants were committed willfully or with reckless disregard for 9
10 the truth. In addition, each defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that material
11 facts were being misrepresented or omitted as described above.
12
57. Defendants were personally motivated to make false statements and 13
14 omit material information necessary to make the statements not misleading in 15
order to personally benefit from the sale of OSI Systems securities from their 16
17 personal portfolios.
18 58. Information showing that defendants acted knowingly or with
19
20 reckless disregard for the truth is peculiarly within defendants' knowledge and 21 control. As the senior managers and/or directors of OSI Systems, the Individual 22
Defendants had knowledge of the details of OSI Systems' internal affairs. 23
24 59. The Individual Defendants are liable both directly and indirectly for
25
the wrongs complained of herein. Because of their positions of control and 26
27 authority, the Individual Defendants were able to and did, directly or indirectly, 28 control the content of the statements of OSI Systems. As officers and/or directors
-
1 of a publicly-held company, the Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate 2
3
timely, accurate, and truthful information with respect to OSI Systems' 4 businesses, operations, future financial condition and future prospects. As a result 5
of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and misleading reports, releases 6
7 and public statements, the market price of OSI Systems securities was artificially
8
inflated throughout the Class Period. In ignorance of the adverse facts concerning 9
10 OSI Systems' business and financial condition which were concealed by
11 defendants, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased or otherwise
12
acquired OSI Systems securities at artificially inflated prices and relied upon the
13
14 price of the securities, the integrity of the market for the securities and/or upon
15
statements disseminated by defendants, and were damaged thereby. 16
17 60. During the Class Period, OSI Systems securities were traded on an
18 active and efficient market. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying
19
20 on the materially false and misleading statements described herein, which the 21 defendants made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying upon the
22
integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of OSI Systems
23
24 securities at prices artificially inflated by defendants' wrongful conduct. Had 25
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have 26
27 purchased or otherwise acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or 28 otherwise acquired them at the inflated prices that were paid. At the time of the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
purchases and/or acquisitions by Plaintiff and the Class, the true value of OSI Systems securities was substantially lower than the prices paid by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. The market price of OSI Systems securities declined sharply upon public disclosure of the facts alleged herein to the injury of Plaintiff and Class members.
61. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, defendants knowingly or recklessly, directly or indirectly, have violated Section 1 O(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 1 Ob-5 promulgated thereunder.
62. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases, acquisitions and sales of the Company's securities during the Class Period, upon the disclosure that the Company had been disseminating misrepresented financial statements to the investing public.
COUNT II
(Violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act Against The Individual Defendants)
63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
26 64. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants participated in the 27
operation and management of OSI Systems, and conducted and participated, 28
directly and indirectly, in the conduct of OSI Systems' business affairs. Because 21
-1 of their senior positions, they knew the adverse non-public information about OSI
2
3
Systems' misstatement of income and expenses and false financial statements.
4 65. As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company, the 5
Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate accurate and truthful information
6
7 with respect to OSI Systems' financial condition and results of operations, and to 8
correct promptly any public statements issued by OSI Systems which had become
9
10 materially false or misleading.
11 66. Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, 12
the Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the
13
14 various reports, press releases and public filings which OSI Systems disseminated
15
in the marketplace during the Class Period concerning OSI Systems' results of
16
17 operations. Throughout the Class Period, the Individual Defendants exercised
18 their power and authority to cause OSI Systems to engage in the wrongful acts 19
20
complained of herein. The Individual Defendants therefore, were "controlling
21 persons" of OSI Systems within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
22
Act. In this capacity, they participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which
23
24 artificially inflated the market price of OSI Systems securities.
25 67. Each of the Individual Defendants, therefore, acted as a controlling 26
27 person of OSI Systems. By reason of their senior management positions and/or 28 being directors of OSI Systems, each of the Individual Defendants had the power
1 to direct the actions of, and exercised the same to cause, OSI Systems to engage in
2 3
the unlawful acts and conduct complained of herein. Each of the Individual
4 Defendants exercised control over the general operations of OSI Systems and
5
possessed the power to control the specific activities which comprise the primary 6
7 violations about which Plaintiff and the other members of the Class complain.
8
68. By reason of the above conduct, the Individual Defendants are liable
9
10 pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by
11 OSI Systems. 12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as follows: 15
A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class
16
17 action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying
18 Plaintiff as the Class representative; 19
20 B.
Requiring defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff and the 21 Class by reason of the acts and transactions alleged herein;
22
C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class prejudgment 23
24 and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees 25
and other costs; and
26
27 D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
28 and proper.
-1 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
2
3 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
4 Dated: December 12, 2013 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By:~~~~~~~--~ Lionel
z.
Glancy Michael Goldberg Robert V. Prongay1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glartcylaw.com
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman Lesley F. Portnoy
600 Third A venue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 j alieberman@pomlaw.com lfportnoy@pomlaw .com POMERAN1ZGROSSMANHUFFORD DAHISIROM& GROSSLLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Certification of Plaintiff
Pursuant to Federal Securities Laws
1. I, Mark Roberti, make this declaration pursuant to Section 101 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
as
required by Section 21D (a) (2) of Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.2. I have reviewed
a
Complaint against Osi Systems, Inc. ("Osi Systems"), and authorize a filing of a comparable complaint on my behalf.3. I did not purchase my Osi Systems securities at the direction of plaintiffs' counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
4. I am willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class as set forth in the Complaint, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary. I understand that the Court has the authority to select the most adequate lead plaintiff in this action.
5. To the best of my current knowledge, the attached sheet lists aJl of my purchases and sales in Osi Systems securities during the Class Period
as
specifiedin the Complaint.
6. During the three-year period preceding the date on which this certification is signed, I have not sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of
a
class under the federal securities laws, except as follows:7. I agree not to accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the class as set forth in the Complaint, beyond my pro rata share of any recovery~ except such reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class as ordered or approved by the Court.
8. The matters stated in this declaration are true to the best of my current know ledge, information and belief.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
!/~.~~~~~~
)I
Y ,
at 0/ (Date) (City, State)(g;Ufe)?
&,. },
8ol~~~J,'
Summary of Purchases and Sales
DATE TRANSACTION NUMBER/ PRICE OF SECURITY
TYPE: TYPE OF
PURCHASE OR SECURITY
SALE
J6J!t1!Jt-
p",...
~
(/;f_-:c:. t}S I.S ?tl?~~1
·
7q ,()(
Mizo//;2-
.
·;:;(/I'd,.,~e.
&>1.5 /t?.P,t;~It
gp,
rl'f
tt
,
h5'/rz_
5a
/e__
&?5J.5 'Yt?tf~If
Kh. (?PI// l ')
J,
-
z_
S'af-r
~51.5 (,~~4..#
5£,
?r
I - ·--
-- -- --
~UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES
This case has been assigned to District Judge _ _ _ _ M--=-ic=h--'-'a..:....el-'W...;_;_. F--=-it:.:::.zuge::_:_r.:c..::al--=-d- - - and the assigned Magistrate Judge is Victor B. Kenton
The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
2:13CV9174 MWF VBKx
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge.
December 12, 2013 Date
Clerk, U. S. District Court
By }.Prado Deputy Clerk
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).
Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:
[RJ Western Division 312 N. Spring Street, G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012
0
Southern Division411 West Fourth St., Ste 1053 Santa Ana, CA 92701
0
Eastern Division3470 Twelfth Street, Room 134 Riverside, CA 92501
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Central District of California
MARK ROBERTI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff(s) v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CV 13-917
4Mwtl~~)
Civil Action No. OSI SYSTEMS, INC., DEEPAK CHOPRA, and
ALAN I. EDRICK
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) Defendants OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, and Alan I. Edrick
12525 Chadron Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3)- you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are: Michael Goldberg (SBN 188669)
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
D FC 1 2 ::r:.; Date: ,• CLERK OF COURT
. .
,,r. ' ... .. JULIE PRADP- :·.: . . . "? • . 'Signature ofCieJfiJ~ Di;ill(jl Cle1;~;·' ...__,.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Central District of California
MARK ROBERTI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff(s) v.
OSI SYSTEMS, INC., DEEPAK CHOPRA, and
ALAN I. EDRICK
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) Defendants OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, and Alan I. Edrick 12525 Chadron Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250
A lawsuit has been filed against you,
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a )(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are: Michael Goldberg (SBN 188669)
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
DEC 1 2 >!IE:
---Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (/))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
; or
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
---
---on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
0 I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
---
---0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
---
---0 Other (specify):
My fees are$ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00
---~----I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
I
MARK ROBERTI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, OSI SYSTEMS, INC., DEEPAK CHOPRA, and ALAN I. EDRICK
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Nassau Co., N.Y.
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles Co., CA
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.
Michael Goldberg (SBN 188669), Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) if you are representing yourself, provide the same information.
Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only
(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
0 1. U.S. Government Plaintiff
[8_] 3. Federal Question (U.S. Otizen ofThis State 0 1 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in this State 0 4 0 4
0 2. U.S. Government Defendant
Government Not a Party)
0 4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)
1v1 1. Original
D
2. Removed fromD
3. Remanded from~ Proceeding State Court Appellate Court
Otizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business in Another State Citizen or Subject of a
0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation Foreign Country
· d 6.
Multi-D 4. Remstate or D 5. Transferred from Another D District
Reopened District (Specify) Litigation
V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: [8J Yes 0 No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)
CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23: [8J Yes 0 No 0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $
0 5 0 0 6 0
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78t(a); and 17 C.F.R. § 240.1 Ob-5
Securities Fraud -Violation of Sections 1 O(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Violation of SEC Rule 1 Ob-5
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).
OTHER STATUTES CONTRACT REAL P,ROP.ERTY C~l'fr. 'IMMIGMnON. PRISONER PETmONS PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 3 75 False Claims Act 0 11 0 Insurance D 240 Torts to Land 0 462 Naturalization Application Habeas Corpus: 0 820 Copyrights
0 400 State 0 120 Marine 0 245 Tort Product 0 463 Alien Detainee 0 830 Patent
Reapportionment Liability 465 Other 0 510 Motions to Vacate
0 41 0 Antitrust 0 130 Miller Act D 290 All Other Real 0 Immigration Actions Sentence 0 840 Trademark
0 140 Negotiable
Prog~rt}l_ . TORTS 0 530 General SOCIAL nCURITY
430 Banks and Banking 0 TORTS
PERSONAL PROPERTY ·
Instrument 0 535 Death Penalty 0 861 HIA (139Sfl)
D 450 Commerce/ICC 150 Recovery of PERSONAL INJURY 0 370 Other Fraud Other: 0 862 Black Lung (923)
Rates/Etc.
D Overpayment & 0 310 Airplane
D 460 Deportation Enforcement of 315 Airplane 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 540 Mandamus/Other 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g)) 470 Racketeer lnflu- Judgment 0 Product Liability 380 Other Personal 0 550 Civil Rights 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 enced & Corrupt Org. 0 151 Medicare Act 0 320 Assault, Libel & 0 Property Damage 555 Prison Condition
Slander 0 0 865 RSI (405 (g))
0 480 Consumer Credit 152 Recovery of 330 Fed. Employers' 0 385 Property Damage 560 Civil Detainee
D Defaulted Student 0 Product Liability 0 Conditions of FEDERAL TAX SUITS
D 490 Cable/Sat TV Loan (Excl. Vet.) Liability 8Af41(RUPTCY Confinement
0 340 Marine 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
[RJ 850 Securities/Com- 153 Recovery of
0 422 Appeal 28
FORFEITURE/PENALTY Defendant) modities/Exchange 0 Overpayment of
0 345 Marine Product Liability usc 158 625 Drug Related 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
0 0
0 890 Other Statutory
Vet. Benefits
0 423 Withdrawal28
Seizure of Property 21 7609
Actions 160 Stockholders' 0 350 Motor Vehicle usc 157 usc 881
D 891 Agricultural Acts D Suits
0 355 Motor Vehicle CIVIL RIGHTS 0
6900ther Product Liability
D 893 Environmental D 1900ther 360 Other Personal 0 440 Other Civil Rights LABOR
Matters Contract 0 Injury
0 441 Voting 0 710 Fair Labor Standards
D 895 Freedom of Info. 1 95 Contract 362 Personal Injury- Act
Act 0 Product Liability 0 Med Malpratice 0 442 Employment 0 720 Labor/Mgmt.
0 896 Arbitration D 196 Franchise 365 Personal injury- 0 443 Housing/ Relations 0 Product Liability Accomodations
0 740 Railway Labor Act 899 Admin. Procedures REAL PROPERTY 367 Health Care/ 445 American with
0 Act/Review of Appeal of 0 210Land D Pharmaceutical 0 Disabilities- 0 751 Family and Medical
Agency Decision Condemnation Personal Injury Employment Leave Act
0 220 Foreclosure Product Liability 0 446 American with O
790 Other Labor
0 950 Constitutionality of 368 Asbestos Disabilities-Other Litigation
State Statutes D 230 Rent Lease & 0 Personal Injury 0 448 Education O 791 Employee Ret. Inc.
Ejectment Product Liabilitv Security Act
cv
5 6 I I IVIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will most likely be initially assigned. This initial assignment
is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.
Question A: Was this case removed from STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF: INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:
state court? '? ~.
D Yes ~ No D Los Angeles Western
If "no, "go to Question B. If "yes," check the D Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Western box to the right that applies, enter the
Southern corresponding division in response to D Orange
Question D, below, and skip to Section IX.
D Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern
Question B: Is the United States, or one of If the United States, or one of its agencies or employees, Is a
party, is It: --~· [->:, ·'
its agencies or employees, a party to this 1~,
action? INITIAL
A PLAINTIFF? A DEFENDANT?
.
DIVISION IN .CACDIS:
D Yes ~ No
Theo check the box below for the ~ounty In ., Then check the box below for the county In
" which the majority of DEFENDANTS reside. which the majority of PLAINTlFFS reside. '
If "no," go to Question C. If "yes," check the D Los Angeles D Los Angeles Western
box to the right that applies, enter the
D Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis D Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis
corresponding division in response to Obispo Obispo Western
Question D, below, and skip to Section IX.
D Orange D Orange Southern
D Riverside or San Bernardino 0 Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern
D Other D Other Western
Question C: Location of A. B. c. D. E. F.
plaintiffs, defendants, and claims? Los Angeles Ventura, Santa Barbara, or Orange County .. Riverside or San Outside the Central Other (Make only one selection per row) County San Luis Obispo Counties Bernardino Counties District of California
'
Indicate the location in which a
0 D D D [g] D
majority of plaintiffs reside: Indicate the location in which a
[8] D
D
D
D
D
majority of defendants reside:
Indicate the location in which a [8]
D
D
D D Dmajority of claims arose:
·'"' ~ ' .,.,..~~:-~
' ,. ~ ~;;_
.
C.1. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: C.2. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies:
D 2 or more answers in Column C D 2 or more answers in Column D
0 only 1 answer in Column C and no answers in Column D D only 1 answer in Column D and no answers in Column C Your case will initially be assigned to the Your case will initially be assigned to the
SOUTHERN DIVISION. EASTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Southern" in response to Question D, below. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question D, below.
If none applies, answer question C2 to the right.
...
If none applies, go to the box below.~
Your case will initially be assigned to theWESTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Western" in response to Question D below.
Question D: Initial Division? .. - "~
. ~ t~~:;;~!t: "4;~p~~1 INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD
-~ Enter the initial division determined by Question A. 8, or C above:...
WESTERN DIVISION
IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? [.8] NO D YES
If yes, list case number(s):
IX(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? [.8] NO D YES
If yes, list case number(s):
Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:
(Check all boxes that apply) D A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
0 B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
. 0 C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
0 D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright. and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY
(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): DATE: December 12,2013
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the lnformati contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United Stares In September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is no I filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed Instructions, see separate Instructions sheet).
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:
Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation
861 HIA 862 BL 863 DIWC 863 DIWW 864 SSID 865 RSI
Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. {42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))
All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923)
All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))
All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.
All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 u.s.c. 405 (g))
