Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND CLASS COUNSEL [12, 16, 24] by Judge Otis D. Wright, II Denying 12 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel; Granting 16 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel; Denying 24 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel: For th e reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Kang's Motion for Appointment, (ECF No. 16), and DENIES Jaramillos and Melchior's Motions for Appointment, (ECF Nos. 12, 24). It is hereby ORDERED that Jay Kang is designated as lead plaintiff in the action, and that The Rosen Law Firm is designated as lead class counsel, subject to the Court's granting of a Motion for Class Certification. (see document for further details) (bm)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Case ? 2:24-cv-08959-ODW (PVCx)

SERET ISHAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
WM TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al.,

ORDER APPOINTING LEAD
PLAINTIFF AND CLASS COUNSEL
[12, 16, 24]

Defendants.

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Seret Ishak brings this putative class action for securities fraud under

19

Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Securities

20

Exchange Act”) against Christopher Beals, Arden Lee, Douglas Francis, Susan Echerd,

21

Mary Hoitt, Scott Gordon, William Healy, and Gregory M. Gentile (“Individual

22

Defendants”) and WM Technology, Inc. (“WM”). (Compl., ECF No 1.) Movants Jay

23

Kang, Lawrence M. Jaramillo, and Vanderlei Melchior each seek appointment as lead

24

plaintiff and their respective counsel as lead counsel. (Jaramillo Mot., ECF No. 12;

25

Kang Mot., ECF No. 16; Melchior Mot., ECF No. 24.)

26
27
28

1

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Movant Kang’s Motion for

2

Appointment and DENIES Movants Jaramillo’s and Melchior’s Motions for

3

Appointment.1
II.

4

BACKGROUND2

5

On June 16, 2021, WM Holding Company, LLC and Silver Spike Acquisition

6

Corp. merged, forming WM. (Compl. ¶¶ 9–10.) WM is an eCommerce software

7

technology company that operates an online cannabis marketplace. (Id. ¶ 7.) It trades

8

on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol “MAPS”. (Id. ¶ 8.)

9

Prior to the merger, on May 25, 2021, WM filed its fourth Amended Registration

10

Statement under Form S-4 with the SEC. (Id. ¶ 25.) On May 26, 2021, WM filed its

11

Form Schedule 14A definitive proxy statement with the SEC to solicit votes for its

12

June 10, 2021 special meeting to approve the merger between WM Holding Company,

13

LLC and Silver Spike Acquisition Corp. (Id. ¶ 26.) In both forms, WM inflated its

14

monthly active user (“MAU”) metric and did not accurately represent the true number

15

of MAUs. (Id. ¶ 28.)

16

Thereafter, from August 13, 2021, through August 8, 2024, WM filed eleven

17

Form 10-Q quarterly reports containing false and misleading statements inflating its

18

MAU metric. (Id. ¶¶ 29–30, 33–49.) Between February 25, 2022, and August 8, 2024,

19

WM filed three Form 10-K annual reports with the SEC covering fiscal years 2021

20

through 2023.

21

executives at some point during the relevant period—Beals, Lee, Francis, Hoitt, and

22

Echard—each signed certifications attached to at least one of the quarterly and annual

23

reports attesting to the report’s accuracy, to WM’s implementation of adequate internal

24

controls over financial reporting, and to the disclosure of all fraud. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33, 35,

25

37, 39, 41, 43, 45–46, 48.) These certifications were false because, by inflating its MAU

(Id. ¶¶ 31, 37, 45.)

Five Individual Defendants who were WM

26
27
28

1

Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the
matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
2
The facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Court accepts as true for this motion all
well-pleaded allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).

2

1

metric, WM failed to maintain adequate internal controls over financial reporting. (Id.

2

¶¶ 32–49.)

3

On August 9, 2022, in WM’s Form 8-K and Form 10-Q for the quarter ending on

4

June 30, 2022, WM disclosed that its board of directors had received an internal

5

complaint regarding “the calculation, definition, and reporting of [its] MAUs.” (Id.

6

¶ 50.) WM’s stock price subsequently dropped over 25%, from $3.46 a share to $2.59

7

a share. (Id. ¶ 52.)

8

On September 24, 2024, the SEC issued a litigation release in which it announced

9

charges against WM, Beals, and Lee for negligently misrepresenting WM’s MAU

10

metric in their public reporting. (Id. ¶ 53.) Additionally, following a related SEC

11

administrative proceeding, WM agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,000 and to the

12

entry of a cease-and-desist order prohibiting further violations of the Securities

13

Exchange Act. (Id. ¶¶ 54–56.) WM’s stock price subsequently dropped 1.9%, closing

14

at $0.92 on September 25, 2024. (Id. ¶ 57.)

15

Ishak is a WM shareholder. (Id. ¶ 6.) On October 17, 2024, Ishak filed this

16

putative class action asserting securities violations against WM with the class period

17

defined as May 25, 2021, through September 24, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 6.) Kang, Jaramillo,

18

and Melchior—each a WM shareholder—now separately move to be appointed lead

19

plaintiff and have their attorneys appointed lead counsel. (Jaramillo Mot.; Kang Mot.;

20

Melchior Mot.) The motions are fully briefed.3
III.

21

LEGAL STANDARD

22

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) provides

23

the process for appointing the lead plaintiff in a securities class action. 15 U.S.C.

24
25
26
27
28

3

(See Mem. ISO Jaramillo Mot. (“Jaramillo Mem.”), ECF No. 13; Mem. P. & A. ISO Kang Mot.
(“Kang Mem.”), ECF No. 17; Mem. P & A. ISO Melchior Mot. (“Melchior Mem.”), ECF No. 25;
Non-Opp’n Vanderlei Melchior (“Melchior Non-Opp’n”), ECF No. 29; Opp’n Jay Kang (“Kang
Opp’n”), ECF No. 36; Opp’n Lawrence M. Jaramillo (“Jaramillo Opp’n”), ECF No. 37; Reply Jay
Kang (“Kang Reply”), ECF No. 38; Reply Lawrence M. Jaramillo (“Jaramillo Reply”), ECF No. 39.)

3

1

§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B). Any member of the purported class may move to serve as lead

2

plaintiff within 60 days after notice of action is published. Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II).

3

The court must appoint as lead plaintiff the member “most capable of adequately

4

representing the interests of class members.” Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). There is a

5

rebuttable presumption that the “most adequate plaintiff” is the movant who (1) files

6

the complaint or made a motion in response to the notice of action, (2) holds “the largest

7

financial interest in the relief sought by the class,” and (3) otherwise satisfies the

8

requirements of Rule 23(a), “in particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” In re

9

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002); see 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).

10

A party may rebut the presumption by showing that the presumed most adequate

11

plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject

12

to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the

13

class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 899 (9th Cir.

14

2021).
Once selected, the lead plaintiff “shall, subject to the approval of the court, select

15
16

and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).
IV.

17

DISCUSSION

18

All movants timely filed Motions for Appointment within 60 days of the

19

published notice. See § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). With timeliness not at issue, the Court

20

must determine which movant has the largest financial interest to be presumed the most

21

adequate plaintiff, whether the movant satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), and

22

whether any challenging movant can rebut the presumption.

23

Because Melchior concedes she does not have the largest financial interest,

24

(Melchior Non-Opp’n 1), the Court DENIES Melchior’s Motion for Appointment at

25

the outset and considers only Kang’s and Jaramillo’s Motions.

26

A.

Largest Financial Interest

27

The movant with the largest financial interest is deemed the presumptive lead

28

plaintiff. Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. The PSLRA does not specify how to assess

4

1

which movant has the largest financial interest, and the Ninth Circuit has left it to the

2

district courts to “select accounting methods that are both rational and consistently

3

applied” in making this determination.

4

No. 22-70044, 2022 WL 3445815, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (“The PSLRA does

5

not provide a specific method for this calculation.”).

Id. at 730 n.4; see also In re Sonthalia,

6

District courts typically apply the Olsten-Lax factors (“Lax factors”) to determine

7

which movant has the largest financial interest: “(1) the number of shares purchased

8

during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period;

9

(3) the total net funds expended during the class periods; and (4) the approximate losses

10

suffered.” Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1159, 1163

11

(C.D. Cal. 2015); see Richardson v. TVIA, Inc., No. C 06 06304 RMW, 2007 WL

12

1129344, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007) (first quoting In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig.,

13

3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); and then citing Lax v. First Merchants

14

Acceptance Corp., No. 97 C 2715, 1997 WL 461036, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997));

15

see also McGee v. Am. Oriental Bioengineering, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-05476-SVW (SHx),

16

2012 WL 12895668, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) (“Courts in this District and others

17

within the Ninth Circuit have looked to four factors in making this [lead plaintiff]

18

determination.”).
The following chart reflects Kang’s and Jaramillo’s respective financial interests

19
20

regarding the Lax factors:

21

Movant

22
23
24
25

Kang
Jaramillo

Total
Shares
Purchased
(Factor #1)
90,559
20,000

Net Shares
Purchased
(Factor #2)
73,000
20,000

LIFO
FIFO
Approximate Approximate
Losses
Losses
(Factor #4)
(Factor #4)
4
$334,049.87 $350,571.27 $286,301.00
$326,934.00 $307,026.88 $307,026.88
Net Funds
Expended
(Factor #3)

26
27
28

4

Kang provides $444,793.95 as his net funds expended. (Kang Reply 3, 6.) However, the Court
agrees with Jaramillo’s assertion that all of Kang’s proceeds from selling shares during the class
period—including shares acquired prior to the commencement of the class period—should be netted

5

1

(Decl. Laurence M. Rosen ISO Kang Mot. (“Rosen Decl. ISO Kang Mot.”) Ex. 3

2

(“Kang’s Loss Chart”), ECF No. 18-3; Decl. Charles H. Linehan ISO Jaramillo Mot.

3

(“Linehan Decl. ISO Jaramillo Mot.”) Ex. C (“Jaramillo’s Loss Chart”), ECF No. 14-

4

3.)

5

1.

Weighing the Lax Factors

6

Some courts consider the fourth factor, approximate losses suffered, the “most

7

determinative in identifying the plaintiff with the largest financial [interest].” Knox,

8

136 F. Supp. 3d. at 1163 (quoting Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344, at *4) (collecting

9

cases). In the absence of binding case law expressly directing courts to prioritize certain

10

factors, it is inherent in the very definition of factors that their relative weight will vary

11

according to the circumstances of each case. See City of Evanston v. N. Ill. Gas. Co.,

12

381 F. Supp. 3d 941, 952 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (weighing of factors “not mathematical in

13

nature”); cf. Williams v. Condensed Curriculum Int'l, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-05292-YGR,

14

2020 WL 6700492, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) (weighing of factors “‘best left to

15

the discretion’ of the Court” (quoting Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage,

16

611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979))). Accordingly, the degree to which the fourth Lax

17

factor is given greater weight in comparison to the first three must be determined on a

18

case-by-case basis.

19

When faced with competing movants whose claimed losses are roughly equal,

20

courts treat those losses as equivalent and look to the other three Lax factors to

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

against his expenses during the class period. (See Jaramillo Reply 4.); Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical,
Inc., No. 10-cv-03451-LHK, 2011 WL 566814, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (“[Net funds
expended] is calculated by looking at the total cash outlays on [the] stock during the Class Period and
subtracting any cash receipts during the same period.”); Tenneson v. Nikola Corp., No. CV-23-02131PHX-DJH(DMF), 2024 WL 905244, at *5 n.5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2024) (“[N]et funds expended equals
‘the difference between the amount spent to purchase shares and the amount received for the sale of
shares during the class period.’”) (quoting Kaplan v. Gelfond, 240 F.R.D. 88, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)).
Using this methodology, Jaramillo argues that $334,078 is Kang’s net expenditure. (Jaramillo
Reply 4.) The Court finds this amount is miscalculated because subtracting Kang’s profits
($110,774.08) from his expenses ($444,793.95) returns a net expenditure amount of $334,049.87. (See
Kang’s Loss Chart.) Accordingly, the Court applies the $334,049.87 amount for Kang’s net
expenditure.

6

1

determine which movant has the largest financial interest. See, e.g., Westchester

2

Putnam Cntys. Heavy & Hwy. Laborers Loc. 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Prop. Grp.,

3

No. 16-cv-02400 (AT)(SN), 2016 WL 11648466, at *1–2, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2016)

4

(noting a 16% difference in claimed losses and finding in favor of movant with lower

5

claimed losses where other three factors “overwhelmingly favor[ed]” the movant). As

6

“static markers [are] set in stone during the class period,” the other three factors—shares

7

purchased, net shares purchased, and funds expended—“provide a more objective

8

assessment of a movant’s financial interest than the losses suffered . . . [which] may be

9

subject to future changes in the price per share.” Id. at *2.

10

2.

Kang’s and Jaramillo’s Approximate Losses

11

The PSLRA limits losses to the difference between the net amount the movant

12

paid for securities during the Class Period and the value of the securities retained

13

through the end of the Class Period, using the ninety-day mean trading price of the

14

security beginning on the day the corrective information is disseminated to the market.

15

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(e)(1). On this point, Kang and Jaramillo are not in dispute. (See

16

Kang’s Loss Chart; Jaramillo’s Loss Chart) (both reflecting a 90-day average price of

17

$0.9954).)

18

Kang and Jaramillo disagree on whether the Court should calculate losses using

19

the First-In-First-Out (“FIFO”) or Last-In-First-Out methodology (“LIFO”). (Compare

20

Kang Reply 3–5 (favoring FIFO approach), with Jaramillo Opp’n 3–4 (favoring LIFO

21

approach).) “Under FIFO, the stocks that were acquired first are assumed to be sold

22

first for loss calculation purposes; under LIFO, the last stocks acquired are assumed to

23

be the first sold.” McGee, 2012 WL 12895668, at *3. “[U]nlike FIFO, [LIFO] takes

24

into account gains that might have accrued to plaintiffs during the class period due to

25

the inflation of the stock price.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Perlmutter,

26

2011 WL 566814, at *10.

27

In this case, the Court need not determine which methodology should be used

28

because Kang’s and Jaramillo’s losses are roughly equal regardless of whether the Court

7

1

uses FIFO or LIFO. Kang’s FIFO losses are $350,571.95, whereas Jaramillo’s are

2

$307,026.88—a difference of 12.42%. (Kang Reply 6.) Under LIFO, Jaramillo’s losses

3

remain $307,026.88, and Kang’s decrease to $286,301—an even smaller difference of

4

7.24%. (See Jaramillo Opp’n 4.) Therefore, the Court deems Kang’s and Jaramillo’s

5

losses to be roughly equal. See Westchester, 2016 WL 11648466, at *1–2; Maeshiro v.

6

Yatsen Holding Ltd., No. 22-CV-8165 (JPC) (BCM), 2023 WL 4684106, at *5

7

(S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2023) (“[W]hen courts rely on Lax/Olsten factors other than the

8

largest financial loss, it is typically because the LIFO losses among competing movants

9

are ‘roughly equivalent.’”).

10

Turning to the first three Lax factors to determine which movant has the largest

11

financial interest, the Court finds that Kang emerges ahead. Indeed, Kang purchased

12

and retained more than three times the number of shares that Jaramillo did (Kang

13

purchased 90,559 and retained 73,000 shares compared to Jaramillo’s 20,000 purchased

14

and retained). Kang also expended more net funds overall ($334,049.87 compared to

15

Jaramillo’s $326,934.00). Considering these figures, that Jaramillo leads Kang in LIFO

16

losses by 7.24% is not enough to outweigh Kang’s weighty advantage in the first three

17

factors. See Arias v. Bird Glob., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08406-ODW (AGRx), 2023 WL

18

3814040 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2023) (weighing the first three factors when calculation

19

methods proposed by movants resulted in loss differentials ranging from 21% to 1%);

20

see, e.g., Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 2:20-CV-03785, 2020 WL 6873421, at *9

21

(S.D. Ohio Nov. 23, 2020) (“[S]everal courts [] choose to consider all four Olsen-Lax

22

factors . . . and they typically involve loss differentials of $20,000 or less.”) (collecting

23

cases); see also Westchester, 2016 WL 11648466, at 2 (finding that a lead plaintiff

24

candidate incurring a $20,884 larger loss did not outweigh the first three factors). Under

25

either proposed approach in a Lax factors analysis, Kang emerges as the movant with

26

the greatest financial interest in the case.

27
28

8

1

B.

Typicality and Adequacy Under Rule 23

2

Having determined that Kang holds the greatest financial interest between the

3

two competing movants, the Court next considers whether Kang makes a prima facie

4

showing of adequacy and typicality under Rule 23. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730,

5

739. “This analysis need not be as complete as would a similar determination for the

6

purpose of class certification.” Knox, 136 F. Supp. 3d at 1165. At this stage, a lead

7

plaintiff “need only make a preliminary showing that it satisfies the typicality and

8

adequacy requirements of Rule 23.” Id.; see Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-

9

07469-PSG (PLAx), 2018 WL 6356109, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) (“The

10

typicality and adequacy requirements are the main focus, and examination of the

11

remaining requirements is deferred until the lead plaintiff moves for class certification.”

12

(cleaned up)).

13

In the PSLRA context, “[t]he test of typicality ‘is whether other members have

14

the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique

15

to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same

16

course of conduct.’”

17

Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Kang’s claims arise

18

from the same conduct as the claims of every other putative class member. Like all

19

class investors, Kang purchased WM securities when the stock prices were artificially

20

inflated because of Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions. (See Kang

21

Mem. 1–3.) Accordingly, Kang makes a prima facie showing of typicality. See

22

Vignola, 2018 WL 6356109, at *3 (finding typicality satisfied in analogous fraud-on-

23

the-market securities class action).

Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344, at *4 (quoting Hanon v.

24

The adequacy requirement in this context “is met if there are no conflicts between

25

the representative and class interests and the representative’s attorneys are qualified,

26

experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc.,

27

682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)); see also

28

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 957 (9th Cir. 2003) (examining whether class

9

1

representatives and their counsel have conflicts with other members and will “prosecute

2

the action vigorously”). Here, there is no evidence of any antagonism between Kang’s

3

interests and the interests of the proposed class members.

4

Furthermore, Kang’s proposed class counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, is a reputable class

5

action firm whose attorneys appear to possess the skills, experience, and resources

6

necessary to prosecute this action. (See Rosen Decl. ISO Kang Mot. Ex. 4 (“Rosen

7

Resume”), ECF No. 18-4.)

8

adequacy.

9

C.

(See Kang Mem. 7.)

Accordingly, Kang makes a prima facie showing of

Rebuttable Presumption

10

Having made a sufficient prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy under

11

Rule 23, Kang successfully establishes a rebuttable presumption that he is the most

12

adequate plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Potential class members can

13

rebut this presumption by providing proof that the presumed lead plaintiff “will not

14

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses

15

that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.”

16

§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); see Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 (“At the third stage, the

17

process turns adversarial and other plaintiffs may present evidence that disputes the lead

18

plaintiff’s prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy.”). Assertions based on

19

speculation alone will fail to rebut the lead plaintiff presumption. See Armour v.

20

Network Assoc., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d. 1044, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (finding a

21

competing movant’s rebuttal arguments failed because they were based on pure

22

speculation).

Id.

23

Under the PSLRA, it is the opposing parties’ burden to obtain and present rebuttal

24

evidence; it is not the movant’s burden to present evidence to extinguish every

25

suggestion of inadequacy made by an opponent. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii);

26

Mersho, 6 F.4th at 901 (reversing district court’s appointment of lead plaintiff where

27

court improperly “penaliz[ed]” certain movants by “le[aving] the burden on [them] to

28

prove adequacy at step three even though the burden should have shifted to the

10

1

competing movants to show inadequacy”).

2

Bearing this burden, Jaramillo attempts to rebut the presumption by arguing that

3

Kang’s methods for calculating his net expenditure and estimated losses are

4

disqualifying. (See Jaramillo Reply 3–4.)

5

In the cases Jaramillo relies upon, the courts found that movants failed to satisfy

6

Rule 23’s requirements because of significant errors and discrepancies in the putative

7

lead plaintiff’s submissions. See, e.g., Camp v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 18-cv-1208-AJB-

8

BLM, 2019 WL 277360, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) (finding that significant

9

errors in transaction records and loss calculations, as well as questions surrounding the

10

movant’s typicality, disqualified him under Rule 23). In contrast to the cases he cites,

11

Jaramillo’s assertion that Kang has made “repeated errors inflating his financial

12

interest,” (Jaramillo Reply 4), is based largely upon Kang’s use of FIFO, which is a

13

recognized and accepted method for calculating approximate losses suffered, see, e.g.,

14

Query v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., 558 F. Supp. 2d 969, 972, 974 (N.D. Cal.

15

2008).

16

Moreover, as described above, even after the Court corrects the calculation of

17

Kang’s net funds expended from $444,793.95 to $334,049.87, that factor still favors

18

Kang as lead plaintiff. Because this adjustment derives from a difference in the method

19

of calculation used and not from any outright inaccuracy in the figures Kang provided,

20

it is distinguishable from cases in which courts have found movants inadequate due to

21

overt errors in their reported data. Cf. Micholle v. Ophthotech Corp., No. 17-CV-1758

22

(VSB), 2018 WL 1307285, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2018) (“[T]he prices [the movant]

23

claims to have paid do not fall within the high and low range listed.”); Nager v.

24

Websecure, Inc., No. CIV.A. 97-10662-GAO, 1997 WL 773717, at *1 n.1 (D. Mass.

25

Nov. 26, 1997) (finding a movant had reported purchases at $17.50 per share on a day

26

when shares were sold at $9.50 per share). Jaramillo offers no additional evidence or

27

facts to cast doubt on Kang’s adequacy and, thus, fails to rebut the presumption. See

28

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

11

Accordingly, the presumption stands, and the Court appoints Kang as lead

1
2

plaintiff in this matter.

3

D.

4

Lead Counsel
Once a lead plaintiff is selected, that plaintiff “shall, subject to the approval of

5

the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.”

6

§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Kang has selected The Rosen Law Firm to represent him and the

7

class. Having reviewed the firm’s resume, the Court is satisfied that the firm will

8

effectively represent the interests of the class and finds no conflicts in this record. (See

9

Rosen Resume.) No party has challenged the adequacy of this firm to serve as lead

10

counsel. Therefore, the Court approves The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel.
V.

11

15 U.S.C.

CONCLUSION

12

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Kang’s Motion for

13

Appointment, (ECF No. 16), and DENIES Jaramillo’s and Melchior’s Motions for

14

Appointment, (ECF Nos. 12, 24).

15

It is hereby ORDERED that Jay Kang is designated as lead plaintiff in the action,

16

and that The Rosen Law Firm is designated as lead class counsel, subject to the Court’s

17

granting of a Motion for Class Certification.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

March 11, 2025

22
23
24
25

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

12