Anton Bielousov v. GoPro, Inc. et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING TROY LARKINS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL by Judge Claudia Wilken. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 Barbara A. Rohr SBN 273353 FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 2 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 3 Telephone: 424-256-2884 Facsimile: 424-256-2885 4 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com 5 Richard W. Gonnello (pro hac vice forthcoming) Katherine M. Lenahan (pro hac vice forthcoming) 6 Sherief Morsy (pro hac vice forthcoming) FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 7 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 8 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 9 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com klenahan@faruqilaw.com 10 smorsy@faruqilaw.com 11 Attorneys for Proposed Lead Plaintiff Troy Larkin 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 ANTON BIELOUSOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, vs. GOPRO, INC. and NICHOLAS D. WOODMAN, Case No. 4:16-CV-06654-CW ORDER GRANTING TROY LARKIN’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL CLASS ACTION Defendants Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken Date: Time: Courtroom: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING TROY LARKIN’S MOTION 4:16-CV-06654-CW Date: A 1 WHEREAS, a putative class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities 2 Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) was filed on November 16, 2016 in the Northern 3 District of California; and 4 WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities 5 Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation 6 Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), on November 16, 2016, first-filed plaintiff Anton 7 Bielousov published notice via Globe Newswire, a widely circulated national business-oriented wire 8 service, advising members of the putative class (the “Class”) of the pendency of the action, the 9 claims asserted therein, the purported class period, and their right to move this Court to be 10 appointed lead plaintiff; and 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act, any purported class member 12 desiring to be appointed Lead Plaintiff was required to have filed a motion for such appointment on 13 or before January 17, 2017; and 14 WHEREAS, Troy Larkin (“Larkin”), filed a timely motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff; 15 and 16 WHEREAS, Larkin has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class and 17 otherwise best satisfies the requirements of Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 23 of the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 19 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 20 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Larkin seeks approval of his selection of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP to serve as Lead 21 Counsel for the Class. 22 AND NOW THIS 6th day of February 2017, the Court having considered the motion of 23 Larkin for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel and all supporting 24 documents, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER GRANTING TROY LARKIN’S MOTION 4:16-CV-06654-CW 1 2 LEAD PLAINTIFF 1. The motion of Larkin to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action is GRANTED. 3 Pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B), Larkin is appointed as 4 Lead Plaintiff for the putative Class. 5 6 LEAD COUNSEL 2. The motion of Larkin for approval of his counsel as Lead Counsel is GRANTED. 7 Pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 8 is approved to serve the Lead Plaintiff and the putative Class as Lead Counsel. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 6, 2017 ___________________________________________ THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER GRANTING TROY LARKIN’S MOTION 4:16-CV-06654-CW

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?