Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund et al v. Stitch Fix, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING THE LOCAL 338 FUNDS 26 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION AS COUNSEL AND DENYING NEW MEXICOS 19 MOTION. Case Management Statement due by 5/30/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2023 02:00 PM.The 6/6/2023 proceeding will be held by AT&T Conference Line. The parties are advised that in the event of an audio problem, counsel should be prepared to attend the hearing via Zoom conference at the Courts direction. The court circulates the following conference number to allow the equivalent of a public hearing by telephone.For conference line information, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/ All counsel, members of the public and press please use the fo llowing dial-in information below to access the conference line: Dial In: 888-808-6929Access Code: 6064255The Court may be in session with proceedings in progress when you connect to the conference line. Therefore, mute your phone if possible and wait for the Court to address you before speaking on the line. For call clarity, parties shall NOT use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where at all possible, parties shall use landlines. The parties are further advis ed to ensure that the Court can hear and understand them clearly before speaking at length.PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroa dcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.NOTE REGARDING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES: All attorneys and pr o se litigants appearing for a telephonic case management conference are required to dial-in at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check-in with the CRD. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 5/22/2023. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2023)

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT
STORE UNION LOCAL 338
RETIREMENT FUND, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

STITCH FIX, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-04893-HSG
ORDER GRANTING THE LOCAL 338
FUNDS’ MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF
AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION
AS COUNSEL AND DENYING NEW
MEXICO’S MOTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 26

13
14

Pending before the Court are two competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and

15

lead counsel: 1) the New Mexico State Investment Council’s (“New Mexico”) Motion, and 2) the

16

Local 338 Funds’1 Motion.2 See Dkt. Nos. 19 (“New Mexico Mot.”), 26 (“Local 338 Mot.”).

17

Both parties filed briefs in opposition to the competing motions and replies in support of their own

18

motions. See Dkt. Nos. 34–37. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without

19
20
21
22

oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Local 338 Funds’ motion and DENIES New Mexico’s
motion.
I.

Defendant Stitch Fix “sells a range of apparel, shoes, and accessories through its website

23
24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND

and mobile application.” Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that Stitch Fix originally
“Local 338 Funds” refers to the following group of funds: Retail Wholesale Department Store
Union (“RWDSU”) Local 338 Retirement Fund, RWDSU Local 338 Health & Welfare Fund,
RWDSU Local 338 General Fund, and RWDSU Local 338 Benefits Trust Fund. See Dkt. No. 26
(“Local 338 Mot.”) at 1.
2
Mr. Dax Billcheck also filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, Dkt.
No. 16, but later withdrew his motion because he did not appear to have the largest financial
interest. See Dkt. No. 32.
1

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 10

1

“sold products as a ‘Fix’ box, through which the customer would receive a monthly box of items

2

chosen by a personal stylist.” Id. The complaint further alleges that in late 2020, “Stitch Fix

3

launched the ‘Freestyle’ program—a new, direct buy program where customers could choose from

4

the outset which items to purchase.” Id. ¶ 3. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]hroughout the Class

5

Period, Stitch Fix touted that the two programs were synergistic, and repeatedly denied claims that

6

the Freestyle program could cannibalize its legacy Fix business.” Id.
According to the complaint, Stitch Fix subsequently made two disclosures that negated

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

these assurances. The first disclosure allegedly occurred on December 7, 2021. Id. at ¶ 4.

9

Plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Stitch Fix “admitted that the Company saw some ‘short

10

term cannibalization’ from new customers who chose to use the new direct-buy Freestyle option

11

rather than the traditional Fix option” and “announced a loss for its first quarter of 2021 and cut its

12

full-year revenue projections.” Id. According to the complaint, “[a]s a result of these disclosures,

13

the price of Stitch Fix stock declined by $5.97 per share, or 24%, from $24.97 per share to $19.00

14

per share.” Id.
Plaintiffs allege that a second disclosure occurred on March 8, 2022 when, among other

15
16

things, “Stitch Fix offered a weak outlook for its third quarter of 2022 and cut its revenue

17

guidance for the full year” and also “announced a self-inflicted friction between the Freestyle

18

program and the Fix program.” Id. ¶ 6. According to the complaint, “[a]s a result of this

19

disclosure, the price of Stitch Fix stock declined by $0.67 per share, or 6%, from $11.01 per share

20

to $10.34 per share.” Id.

21

II.

22

APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) “instructs district courts to select

23

as lead plaintiff the one ‘most capable of adequately representing the interests of class

24

members.’” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

25

4(a)(3)(B)(i)). “The ‘most capable’ plaintiff—and hence the lead plaintiff—is the one who has the

26

greatest financial stake in the outcome of the case, so long as he meets the requirements of Rule

27

23.” Id. The Ninth Circuit interprets the PSLRA as establishing “a simple three-step process for

28

identifying the lead plaintiff pursuant to these criteria.” Id. The Court must: (1) determine
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 10

1

whether appropriate notice was published; (2) determine which plaintiff has the largest financial

2

stake and whether this plaintiff satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements; and (3) provide

3

the other plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing of typicality

4

and adequacy. Id. at 729–32.

5

A.

6

Step One consists of meeting the PSLRA’s notice requirement. Id. at 729. “The first

Notice Requirement

7

plaintiff to file an action covered by the [PSLRA] must post this notice ‘in a widely circulated

8

national business-oriented publication or wire service.’” Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

9

4(a)(3)(A)(i)). The notice must be published within 20 days of the complaint’s filing. 15 U.S.C. §

10

78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice must also alert putative class members “(I) of the pendency of the

11

action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60

12

days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move

13

the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.” Id.

14

Here, notice was published in Business Wire on the same date that the complaint was filed.

15

Compare Dkt. No. 8-1 (“Notice”) with Compl. This complied with the PSLRA’s 20-day filing

16

deadline, and Business Wire is a “widely circulated [inter]national business-oriented news

17

reporting service,” as required. Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 729 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

18

4(a)(3)(A)(i)). The notice specifically announced the filing of the action against Stitch Fix,

19

described the asserted claims under the Securities Act, described the class as encompassing

20

“purchasers of Stitch Fix Class A common stock between December 8, 2020, and March 8, 2022,

21

inclusive,” and notified putative class members that any motion to be appointed lead plaintiff must

22

be filed no later than October 25, 2022. See generally Notice. Accordingly, Step One’s

23

requirements are met.

24

B.

25

Step Two consists of identifying the presumptive lead plaintiff. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d

Largest Financial Stake in the Litigation

26

at 729–30. There is a rebuttable presumption that the “most adequate plaintiff” is the one who

27

“(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph

28

(A)(i); (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
3

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 4 of 10

1

by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Thus, once the filing requirement of subsection

3

(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa) is met, “the district court must compare the financial stakes of the various

4

plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d

5

at 730. Both the Local 338 Funds and New Mexico filed their motions on October 25, 2022, see

6

New Mexico Mot. and Local 338 Mot., satisfying subsection (aa), so the Court must then

7

determine who has the largest financial interest in the litigation.
The Local 338 Funds argue that they have the largest financial interest in the litigation

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8
9

because they incurred the greatest financial loss at $1.9 million, calculated using the last-in-first-

10

out (“LIFO”) method. See Dkt. No. 37 (“Local 338 Reply”) at 1; see also Dkt. No. 37-2, Uslaner

11

Decl., Ex. A (“Local 338 Loss Chart”). New Mexico calculates that it incurred an approximately

12

$1.3 million dollar loss under the LIFO method, see Dkt. No. 36-2, Ward Supp. Decl., Ex. A

13

(New Mexico Loss Chart), but argues that the court should apply the retained shares method

14

instead. See Dkt. No. 36 (“New Mexico Reply”) at 3. New Mexico reasons that because “Local

15

338 sold out immediately after the first, partially corrective disclosure on December 7, 2021, its

16

net shares purchased during the Class Period is zero.” Id. New Mexico contends that, using the

17

retained shares method of calculation, it experienced a “loss of $1,294,198 . . . compared to a loss

18

of $0 for Local 338.” Id. at 4.
“The Ninth Circuit has declined to endorse a particular method” to calculate which movant

19
20

has the largest financial stake in a securities class action. Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., No.

21

12-cv-05980-CRB, 2013 WL 792642, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) (citation omitted). Instead,

22

district courts “may select accounting methods that are both rational and consistently applied.”

23

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 n.4. As this Court recently summarized, courts often rely on one of

24

two methods for estimating actual economic losses: 1) a “last in, first out” (LIFO) calculation, or

25

2) a “retained shares” calculation. See In re Lyft Sec. Litig. (“Lyft”), No. 19-CV-02690-HSG,

26

2020 WL 1043628, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020).3 The retained shares method “will most

27
28

3

Courts consider the four Lax-Olsten factors to determine economic loss but “[m]any courts
4

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 5 of 10

1

accurately calculate net loss where there are not multiple partial disclosures that reveal the

2

purported fraud during the class period.” Id. at 4. This method is best suited to cases with a

3

“relatively constant fraud premium through the class period.” Id. (quotation omitted).
New Mexico includes the calculations below in its opposition and acknowledges that “the

4
5

weight of the authority plac[es] greater significance on the fourth of the Olsten-Lax factors, the

6

approximate losses suffered.” Dkt. No. 35 (“New Mexico Opp.”) at 4.

7
8

New Mexico

Local 338 Funds

Shares Purchased

46,253

89,727

10

Net Shares Purchased

25,967

0

11

Net Funds Expended

$1,301,589

$1,702,897

12

LIFO Losses

$1,318,489

$1,702,897

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

13
14

Id.4 Despite this, New Mexico argues that this Court should apply the retained shares method to

15

determine which party has the largest financial interest in the action. Id. at 5.

16

The Local 338 Funds argue that the “‘retained shares approach would not result in the most

17

accurate loss calculation’ in cases like this one, which alleges that the fraud was revealed

18

gradually through two or more partial corrective disclosures.” Local 338 Reply at 4 (quoting Lyft,

19

2020 WL 1043628, at *4). New Mexico argues that this case is distinguishable from Lyft because

20

while the Lyft “complaint alleged multiple partial corrective [disclosures] that touched on several

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

consider the fourth factor, approximate loss, the most important.” See Markette v. XOMA Corp.,
No. 15-CV-03425-HSG, 2016 WL 2902286, at *5 n.4 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2016); see also In re
Diamond Foods, Inc., Sec. Litig., 281 F.R.D. 405, 408 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The other three LaxOlsten factors are “(1) the number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the number of
net shares purchased during the class period; [and] (3) the total net funds expended during the
class period.” In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (quotation
omitted).
4

In footnotes to its chart, New Mexico points out that its loss calculation for the Local 338 Funds
was based only on the one member fund (the “Retirement Fund”) that had not sold its holdings
prior to the first disclosure. See New Mexico Opp. at 4 n.4 (citation omitted). It also points out
that “[w]hen factoring in sales by the Retirement Fund prior to the first corrective disclosure, the
Retirement Fund held 55,441 shares at the time of the initial corrective disclosure, all of which
were sold shortly following the disclosure.” See id. n.5 (citation omitted).
5

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 6 of 10

1

disparate issues . . . . this case involves one partial, and still deceptive, disclosure and one final

2

disclosure fully revealing the alleged fraud.” New Mexico Reply at 4. New Mexico contends that

3

“[w]hile both disclosures are connected and related to the same underlying issue, it was not until

4

new facts were disclosed on March 8, 2022 that the market was apprised and fully corrected about

5

the alleged fraud.” Id. Thus, it argues, “application of the retained shares approach is

6

appropriate.” Id.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

The Court disagrees. Here, the complaint alleges that the first disclosure caused Stitch Fix

8

stock to decline by 24% and the second disclosure caused Stitch Fix stock to decline by only 6%.

9

See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6. The large disparity alleged in the price effect of the two disclosures

10

“suggest[s] that there likely was not a constant fraud premium, such that a retained shares

11

approach would not result in the most accurate loss calculation in this case.” See Lyft, 2020 WL

12

1043628, at *4. Consequently, “[i]t would be very difficult for the Court to assess the effect of a

13

non-constant fraud premium in determining loss.” See id. And the applicability of the reasoning

14

of Lyft does not hinge on whether a case involves disclosures about “disparate” or “related” issues:

15

the point is that viewing the class period as a whole, the Local 338 Funds allege that they suffered

16

substantially the largest loss based on the first very-impactful disclosure, and the fact that they did

17

not also suffer losses based on the second much-less-impactful disclosure does not undermine

18

their position for PSLRA purposes. Put another way, New Mexico’s assertion that the Local 338

19

Funds’ claimed loss should be valued at zero dollars is not reasonable as a matter of basic

20

economics based on the allegations here.

21

Using a LIFO calculation, the Local 338 Funds has the largest financial loss. Although the

22

Local 338 Funds estimate their LIFO loss at approximately $1.9 million, see Local 338 Reply at 3,

23

and New Mexico estimates the Local 338 Funds’ LIFO loss at approximately $1.7 million, see

24

New Mexico Opp. at 4, the Local 338 Funds’ LIFO loss is greater than New Mexico’s estimated

25

LIFO loss. See New Mexico Opp. at 4 (listing its estimated LIFO losses as approximately $1.3

26

million); see also Local 338 Loss Chart; New Mexico Loss Chart.

27
28

Based on New Mexico’s own calculations, the Local 338 Funds also have the most shares
purchased, and the largest net funds expended. Although New Mexico has a greater number of net
6

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 7 of 10

1

shares purchased, the Court declines to give significant weight to this factor for the same reason it

2

declined to apply the retained shares calculation method: “net shares purchased and a retained

3

shares calculation are less useful analytical tools where gradual disclosures are involved, because

4

those methods assume a constant fraud premium throughout the class period.” See Nicolow, 2013

5

WL 792642, at *4 & n.5 (cleaned up) (collecting cases).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Local 338 Funds have the largest financial interest in

7

the action.

8

C.

9

Next, a presumptive lead plaintiff has the burden of setting forth a prima facie case that he

Movant’s Typicality and Adequacy

10

can satisfy the class representative requirements of Rule 23(a), typicality and adequacy. See 15

11

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Competing movants can rebut this

12

showing by setting forth evidence that the presumptive lead plaintiff “will not fairly and

13

adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses that render such

14

plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

15

The Local 338 Funds argue that they “and all other Class members suffered the same

16

injuries, their claims arise from the same course of events, and their legal arguments to prove

17

Defendants’ liability are nearly identical.” Local 338 Mot. at 6. Specifically, they argue that

18

“[l]ike all other Class members, the Local 338 Funds (1) purchased Stitch Fix Class A common

19

stock during the Class Period, (2) at prices allegedly artificially inflated by Defendants’ materially

20

false and misleading statements and/or omissions, and (3) were harmed when the truth was

21

revealed.” Id. The Local 338 Funds further argue that “[t]here are no facts to suggest any actual

22

or potential conflict of interest or other antagonism between the Local 338 Funds and the other

23

members of the Class” and point out that they have “filed the only complaint asserting these

24

claims against Defendants, and initiated the process for investors to seek appointment as Lead

25

Plaintiff.” Id. at 7–8. The Court finds that the Local 338 Funds have made a prima facie showing

26

of typicality and adequacy.

27
28

New Mexico endeavors to rebut this showing in several ways. New Mexico first argues
that the Local 338 Funds would not be a typical representative because “[i]mmediately following
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 8 of 10

1

the partial disclosure of December 7, 2021, Local 338 sold into a still inflated market while

2

shareholders, such as NMSIC, who retained stock throughout the class period, suffered the full

3

impact of the alleged fraud.” New Mexico Opp. at 6. New Mexico contends that “[t]his presents

4

a conflict of interest for Local 338 in representing class members who purchased shares after

5

December 7, 2021 at artificially inflated prices or who retained shares through the end of the class

6

period.” Id. The Court disagrees. As the Local 338 Funds argue, “there is no basis to suggest that

7

losses resulting from the December 2021 disclosure should be discounted relative to losses on the

8

second disclosure, or that investors that incurred losses on shares held through the first partial

9

disclosure are atypical of other class members.” Local 338 Reply at 6–7. New Mexico cites no

10

controlling cases that support their argument that the Local 338 Funds necessarily have a conflict

11

of interest because they sold their shares after the first disclosure. In light of this, the Court agrees

12

with cases holding that plaintiffs who sell their stock at a net loss after the first of multiple

13

disclosures are not precluded from serving as lead plaintiffs. See, e.g., Dang v. Amarin Corp.,

14

2022 WL 15524944, at *11 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2022) (explaining that movant’s “sale of its shares

15

before the Class Period ended does not render it incapable of adequately protecting the interests of

16

the Class or subject it to unique defenses because it sold its shares after two of the four alleged

17

disclosures during the Class Period” (footnote omitted)); Juliar v. Sunopta Inc., 2009 WL

18

1955237, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2009) (explaining that “where a putative lead plaintiff sold all

19

its shares after a partial disclosure of misconduct by the defendant but before the final disclosure

20

that led to the lawsuit, that putative lead plaintiff does not face the unique defense of having to

21

show loss causation to the extent that it cannot serve as lead plaintiff”).

22

New Mexico also argues that the Local 338 Funds may be atypical representatives because

23

they may be subject to the unique defense that they cannot prove loss causation because they lack

24

standing to assert losses caused by the second disclosure. See New Mexico Opp. at 7. The Court

25

disagrees. As the Local 338 Funds point out, courts have routinely rejected this standing

26

argument. See Local 338 Reply at 7–8. This Court agrees with the reasoning that “the lead

27

plaintiffs need[] only to prove that they suffered a concrete injury because of defendants’

28

wrongdoing, not every injury alleged by the class.” In re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 9 of 10

1

No. C-03-05421 RMW, 2005 WL 3801587, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2005) (emphasis in

2

original). Further, even if the Local 338 Funds might be subject to “the potential application of

3

this defense down the road,” the Court does not find that this makes the Local 338 Funds

4

“atypical or inadequate for purposes of choosing a lead plaintiff.” Lyft., 2020 WL 1043628, at *6.

5

New Mexico also argues in the alternative that the Court should consider appointing New

6

Mexico and the Local 338 Funds as co-lead plaintiffs. See New Mexico Opp. at 7. New Mexico

7

contends that “[c]ourts have recognized the value of appointing co-lead plaintiffs where the failure

8

of one movant to retain stock throughout the class period gives rise to concerns regarding

9

adequacy and typicality.” New Mexico Opp. at 8. The Local 338 Funds oppose the appointment

10

of co-lead plaintiffs. See Local 338 Reply at 8–9. The Court agrees with the Local 338 Funds that

11

appointing co-lead plaintiffs in this case is unnecessary and potentially might be at odds with the

12

PSLRA. See Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 586 F.3d 703, 711 n.4 (9th Cir.

13

2009) (explaining that “[w]hile the PSLRA allows a group to serve as lead plaintiff, it also

14

consistently refers to the lead plaintiff and most adequate plaintiff in the singular, suggesting that

15

the district court should appoint only one lead plaintiff, whether an individual or a group”).
The Court accordingly finds that the Local 338 Funds have met the typicality and

16
17

adequacy requirements.

18

III.

APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL

19

The Local 338 Funds have moved for approval of its selection of Bernstein Litowitz as

20

lead counsel. Local 338 Mot. at 8; see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate

21

plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the

22

class.”). The Court defers to the Local 338 Funds’ choice of lead counsel because the lead plaintiff

23

“has the statutory prerogative to select counsel for the class, subject to approval by the Court.”

24

Nicolow, 2013 WL 792642, at * 6 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(v)); Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at

25

739 n.11 (noting that “Congress gave the lead plaintiff, and not the court, the power to select a

26

lawyer for the class”); Cohen, 586 F.3d 703 at 709 (clarifying that “[t]he clause subjecting the lead

27

plaintiff's selection of counsel ‘to the approval of the district court’ in no way suggests that a

28

district court shares in the lead plaintiff's authority to select lead counsel or that disapproval of a
9

Case 4:22-cv-04893-HSG Document 42 Filed 05/22/23 Page 10 of 10

1

lead plaintiff's choice divests the lead plaintiff of this authority. The ordinary reading of this clause

2

merely gives the district court the limited power to accept or reject the lead plaintiff's selection”).

3

Bernstein Litowitz has extensive experience as counsel in securities class actions. See Local

4

Funds Mot. at 8–10; Dkt. No. 26-3, Uslaner Decl., Ex. B (firm resume). The Court thus approves

5

the Local 338 Funds’ selection of counsel.

6

IV.

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court, GRANTS the Local 338 Funds’ motion and

8

DENIES New Mexico’s motion. The Local 338 Funds are appointed as lead plaintiffs for the

9

putative class. Bernstein Litowitz is further approved as lead counsel for the putative class.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The Court further SETS a telephonic case management conference on June 6, 2023, at

11

2:00 p.m. The Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint case

12

management statement by May 30, 2023. All counsel shall use the following dial-in information

13

to access the call:

14
15

Dial-In: 888-808-6929;

16

Passcode: 6064255

17
18

All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for a telephonic case management conference

19

are required to dial in at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom

20

deputy. For call clarity, parties shall NOT use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and

21

where at all possible, parties shall use landlines.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/22/2023
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
10