Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc et al

Filing 29

AMENDED ORDER to Consolidate. The Shotwell Action (Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC) and Vargosko Action (Case No. 2:17-cv-01721-JCC) are consolidated for all purposes including, but not limited to, discovery, pretrial proceedings and trial proceedings. The docket in Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC shall constitute the Master Docket for this action. Movants are appointed as Lead Plaintiffs of the Class, as Movants have the largest financial interest in this litigation. Movants' choice of counse l is approved, and accordingly, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is appointed as Lead Counsel and Hall & George PLLC is appointed as Local Counsel. Lead Counsel, after being appointed by the Court, shall manage the prosecution of this litigation. Within 14 d ays from the issuance of this order, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding a deadline for filing an amended complaint and a briefing schedule for any motions to dismiss. The Clerk is DIRECTED to schedule a status conference for this matter on February 20, 2018 at 9:00 am. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JAMES SHOTWELL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

10
11

CASE NO. C17-1387-JCC
AMENDED ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

ZILLOW GROUP, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Jo Ann Offutt, Raymond Harris, and Johanna

17

Choy’s (collectively “Movants”) motion to consolidate, for appointment as lead plaintiffs, and

18

approval of their choice of counsel (Dkt. No. 15). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and

19

the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion

20

for the reasons explained herein.

21

I.

22

BACKGROUND
This case involves two related class action lawsuits brought against Zillow Group, Inc.,

23

Spencer Rascoff (Zillow’s CEO), and Kathleen Philips (Zillow’s CFO) (collectively

24

“Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),

25

15 U.S.C. § 77, et seq. (Dkt. Nos. 10 at 2, 16-7 at 2.) On August 22, 2017, Stephen Vargosko

26

filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants in the Central District of California (the
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

“Vargosko Action”). (Dkt. No. 16-6) (Stephen Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:17-

2

cv-06207 (C.D. Cal. Aug 22, 2017)). Vargosko’s counsel immediately filed notice pursuant to

3

the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) advising potential class

4

members of the alleged claims and the deadline for filing a motion to be appointed as lead

5

plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 16-1 at 2.) On October 23, 2017, Movants filed a motion in the Vargosko

6

Action to be appointed as lead plaintiffs and approve their selected counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 3,

7

16-2 at 2–8.)

8
9

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff James Shotwell filed his complaint against Defendants
in this Court (the “Shotwell Action”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Shotwell’s lawsuit alleges essentially the

10

same claims and facts as the Vargosko Action. (Compare Dkt. No. 10, with Dkt. No. 16-6.) On

11

November 15, 2017, the parties to the Vargosko Action stipulated to a transfer to this Court in

12

anticipation that the suits would be consolidated. (Dkt. No. 16-8.) 1 Movants file this renewed

13

motion asking the Court for three things: (1) to consolidate the Vargosko Action and Shotwell

14

Action (as well as other related cases filed in the future); (2) to appoint Movants as lead plaintiffs

15

pursuant to PSLRA; and (3) approve Movants selection of lead and local counsel. (Dkt. No. 15 at

16

2.) The Court addresses these issues in turn.

17

II.

DISCUSSION

18

A.

Consolidation

19

A district court may consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1). Courts are afforded “broad discretion” to consolidate related matters

21

that are pending in the same district. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.

22

1987) (citation omitted). PLSRA envisions that separate actions asserting “substantially the same

23

claim or claims” will be consolidated and requires the district court to rule on a motion to

24
25
26

1

After transfer, the Vargosko action was initially assigned to the Hon. James L. Robart.
See C17-01721-JLR. It was subsequently transferred to this Court based on the parties’ filing of
a notice of related case and Movants’ pending motion to consolidate.
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 2

1
2

consolidate prior to appointing a lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(ii).
The Vargosko and Shotwell actions are identical in nearly all respects. Both allege that

3

Defendants violated the Exchange Act when they made material false and misleading statements

4

in the Company’s annual financial reports (form 10-K) in 2016 and 2017. (Compare Dkt. No. 10

5

at 14–20, with Dkt. No. 16-6 at 12–15.) 2 Both parties assert that Defendants’ subsequent

6

disclosure of possible violations in August 2017 caused over a 15% decline in Zillow’s share

7

price, which represents the harm caused to proposed class members. (Compare Dkt. No. 10 at

8

11, with Dkt. No. 16-6 at 9.) Also, the time period in which these acts are alleged to have

9

occurred is largely the same. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 10, 16-6.) Defendants do not oppose

10
11

consolidation. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2.) 3
For those reasons, the Court finds that the Vargosko and Shotwell actions share common

12

questions of fact and law and it is appropriate to consolidate these matters for all purposes.

13

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Movants motion to consolidate is

14

GRANTED.

15

B.

Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs

16

PSLRA sets out specific guidelines for appointing lead plaintiffs in class actions brought

17

under the Exchange Act. A district court can consider a motion to appoint a lead plaintiff, filed

18

by class members in response to a published notice of class action, “as soon as practicable after

19

the Court decides any pending motion to consolidate.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(ii); 15

20

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). The motion may be brought by “a class member who is not

21

individually named as a plaintiff in the complaint or complaints . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-

22

1(a)(3)(B)(i); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). PSLRA establishes a “rebuttable presumption” that

23

“the most adequate plaintiff” to serve as lead plaintiff is “the person or group of persons” that:

24
25

2

In his amended complaint, Shotwell additionally alleges Defendants violated provisions
of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k. (Dkt. No. 10 at 19–20.)
3

26

Although not objecting, Defendants expressly reserve all objections and rights they may
have in this action. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2.)
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 3

1
2
3
4
5

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a
notice . . .[who](bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).
On October 23, 2017, Movants made their original motion in response to the notice of

6

class action filed in the Vargosko Action. (Dkt. No. 15 at 3.) In the present motion, Movants

7

again ask the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiffs. (Id. at 6) The Court is unaware of any

8

other parties that have filed a lead plaintiff motion nor are there objections to Movants’ motion.

9

Movants need not be named plaintiffs to file their motion and the statute explicitly allows for

10

“groups of persons” to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The Court

11

concludes that Movants properly filed their motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs.

12

To determine which plaintiff has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the

13

class, the court “must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which

14

one has the most to gain from the lawsuit” based on “accounting methods that are both rationally

15

and consistently applied.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir.2002). Movants assert

16

that they purchased a total of 1318 shares of Zillow common stock during the alleged class

17

period. (Dkt. No. 16-2 at 2–8.) Movants further assert that they lost a total of $9,206.05 based on

18

the drop in Zillow’s share price that was allegedly caused by Defendants’ misconduct. (Dkt. Nos.

19

15 at 7, 16-2 at 2–8.) 4 Movants state that they are unaware of other class members holding a

20

larger financial interest in the lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 15.)

21

Based on the record, the only other financial interest the Court can consider is Shotwell’s.

22

In his PSLRA class representative certification, Shotwell asserted that he owned 96 shares of

23

Zillow stock at purchase price of $47.82. (Dkt. No. 16-7 at 23–25.) Shotwell did not assert that

24

he sold any shares. (Id. at 23) Shotwell owned less shares than Movants during the relevant class

25

period and suffered a smaller alleged loss. (Compare Dkt. No. 16-2, with Dkt. No. 16-7 at 23.)

26

4

This is the total amount lost by all three Movants combined. (Dkt. No. 16-2.)

ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 4

1

The Court concludes that Movants have demonstrated they have the largest financial interest in

2

this action.

3

For the purposes of appointing lead plaintiff under PSLRA, Movants need only make out

4

a prima facie showing that they satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

23(a). Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730-31. Rule 23 allows a plaintiff to serve as class representative

6

so long as: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are

7

questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative

8

parties are typical of the claims of defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will

9

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

10

Movants have made a prima facie showing that they would satisfy the requirements of

11

Rule 23(a) as lead plaintiffs. The alleged class, all individuals who purchased Zillow securities

12

during the class period, is sufficiently large that joinder is impracticable. (Dkt. No. 10 at 9.) As

13

the Court noted in its discussion of consolidation, the class shares common questions of law and

14

fact. See supra Sec. II.A. The similarity of the allegations made by class members demonstrates

15

that Movants’ claims are typical of the class claims. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 10, 16-6.) Finally,

16

Movants state that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. (Dkt. No. 15

17

at 9–11.) The Court concludes that Movants satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) for the

18

purpose of appointment as lead plaintiff under PSLRA.

19

For the above reasons, the Court finds a rebuttable presumption that Movants are the

20

most adequate plaintiff to serve as lead plaintiffs. 5 The Court therefore GRANTS Movants’

21

motion to be appointed as lead plaintiffs of the putative class.

22

C.

Approval of Lead Counsel

23

“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to approval of the court, select and retain

24
25
26

5

The Court has not received an objection or other evidence that would require it to test
the rebuttable presumption under 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II) and 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 5

1

counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(v); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).

2

“Lead counsel must be ‘qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed

3

litigation’ on behalf of the class.” In re Quintus Sec. Litig., 148 F. Supp. 2d 967, 972 (N.D. Cal.

4

2001) (quoting Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 130 (1st Cir.1985)).

5

Movants have selected the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel, and Hall & George

6

PLLC as local counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 11, 16-2.) The Rosen Law Firm filed the complaint in

7

the Vargosko action. (Dkt. No. 16-6.) In support of its choice, Movants assert counsel has been

8

actively investigating the classes’ claims and has significant experience successfully prosecuting

9

securities related class actions. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 11, 16-4, 16-5.) The Court finds that the

10

proposed lead counsel are qualified and experienced to conduct the litigation and protect the

11

interests of the class. Accordingly, the Court approves of Movants’ selection of lead counsel.

12

III.

13

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Movants motion to consolidate, for appointment as lead

14

plaintiffs, and approval of plaintiff’s choice of counsel (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED. In

15

accordance with its ruling, the Court ORDERS the following:

16

1.

The Shotwell Action (Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC) and Vargosko Action (Case

17

No. 2:17-cv-01721-JCC) are consolidated for all purposes including, but not limited to,

18

discovery, pretrial proceedings and trial proceedings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

19

42(a).

20
21

2.

The docket in Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC shall constitute the Master Docket for

this action.

22

3.

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

25

----------------------------------------------X

26

In re Zillow Group, Inc.
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 6

Every pleading filed in the consolidated action shall bear the following caption:

Master File: C17-1387-JCC

1

Securities Litigation

2
3

CLASS ACTION
----------------------------------------------X

4
5

This Document Relates To:
4.

The file in civil action No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC shall constitute a master file for

6

every action in the consolidated action. When the document being filed pertains to all actions,

7

the phrase “All Actions” shall appear immediately after the phrase “This Document Relates To:”

8

When a pleading applies to some, but not all, of the actions, the document shall list, immediately

9

after the phrase “This Document Relates To:”, the docket number for each individual action to

10

which the document applies, along with the last name of the first-listed plaintiff in said action.

11

5.

All Securities Class Actions subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District

12

shall be consolidated into this action. This Order shall apply to every such action, absent an order

13

of the Court. A party objecting to such consolidation, or to any other provisions of this Order,

14

must file an application for relief from this Order within ten days after the date on which a copy

15

of this Order is mailed to the party’s counsel.

16
17
18

6.

This Order is entered without prejudice to the rights of any party to apply for

severance of any claim or action, with good cause shown.
7.

Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-

19

4(a)(3)(B), and Section 27(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B), Movants

20

are appointed as Lead Plaintiffs of the Class, as Movants have the largest financial interest in this

21

litigation and otherwise satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

22
23
24

8.

Movants’ choice of counsel is approved, and accordingly, The Rosen Law Firm,

P.A. is appointed as Lead Counsel and Hall & George PLLC is appointed as Local Counsel.
9.

Lead Counsel, after being appointed by the Court, shall manage the prosecution of

25

this litigation. Lead Counsel is to avoid duplicative or unproductive activities and is hereby

26

vested by the Court with the responsibilities that include, without limitation, the following: (1) to
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 7

1

prepare all pleadings; (2) to direct and coordinate the briefing and arguing of motions in

2

accordance with the schedules set by the orders and rules of this Court; (3) to initiate and direct

3

discovery; (4) prepare the case for trial; and (5) to engage in settlement negotiations on behalf of

4

Lead Plaintiffs and the Class.

5

10.

Within 14 days from the issuance of this order, counsel for the parties shall meet

6

and confer regarding a deadline for filing an amended complaint and a briefing schedule for any

7

motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and then

8

propose such schedule for the Court’s approval.

9
10
11

11.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to schedule a status conference for this matter on

February 20, 2018 at 9:00 am.
DATED this 5th day of January 2018.

A

12
13
14

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1387-JCC
PAGE - 8