Motion of Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden and Tenzin Woiser to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Approve Their Selection of Lead Counsel — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 144, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
A Motion and Memorandum of Law (Document 144, 17 pages) in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA (Case No. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered April 14, 2021 over the /s/ signature of Sarah N. Westcot for plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden and Tenzin Woiser in the actions involving federal securities laws. Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, the movants ask to be appointed lead plaintiffs, arguing that they filed a complaint, have the largest financial interest and satisfy Rule 23 typicality and adequacy, and ask the court to approve their selection of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as lead counsel. The Local Rule 7.1(A)(3) certification states that plaintiff Cody Todd opposes the motion and that Robinhood takes no position.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Motion of Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden and Tenzin Woiser to… (Dkt. 144).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-04-14-campos-v-choicepoint-inc/
, SHA-256 64f8af288853345dafb4fc0d488372ad21e7be88af420dcd2e9055d3dde38946.Full text
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
IN RE: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
This Document Relates to: All Actions Involving Federal Securities Laws
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF
PLAINTIFFS ERIC QUAT, AARON FASSINGER, MIKE ROSS, IGOR
KRAVCHENKO, MICHAEL MCFADDEN AND TENZIN WOISER TO APPOINT
LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND APPROVE THEIR SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1
MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2
III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 4
A. Plaintiffs Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Under The PSLRA ................... 4
1. Plaintiffs Filed A Complaint ....................................................................... 5
2. Plaintiffs Have The Largest Financial Interest ........................................... 5
3. Plaintiffs Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23 ......................................... 7
a. Typicality............................................................................................. 8
b. Adequacy ............................................................................................. 8
B. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed Lead Counsel ..................................... 9
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 11
i
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 3 of 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE(S)
CASES
Campos v. ChoicePoint,Inc.,
237 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Ga. 2006) ................................................................................................. 8
Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California,
586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................... 9, 10, 11
Fischler v. AMSouth Bancorporation,
1997 WL 118429 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 1997) ............................................................................ 7, 8
Garcia v. Kashi Co.,
43 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ......................................................................................... 6
In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.,
258 F.R.D. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................................................ 5
In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)........................................................................................................ 7
In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig.,
247 F.R.D. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................................................ 7
Inchen Huang v. Depomed, Inc.,
289 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 9
McDermid v. Inovio Pharm., Inc.,
467 F. Supp. 3d 270 (E.D. Pa. 2020) .......................................................................................... 7
Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs.,
209 F.R.D. 499 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ............................................................................................. 5, 6
Piazza v. Ebsco Indus., Inc.,
273 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 8
Plymouth Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Carter's, Inc.,
2009 WL 692141 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2009)............................................................................... 8
Sheet Metal Workers Loc. 28 Pension Fund v. Off. Depot, Inc.,
2008 WL 1943955 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2008) ............................................................................... 6
STATUES
15 U.S.C. § 78(j)(b) ........................................................................................................................ 4
ii
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 4 of 17
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 ........................................................................................................................... 1
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) ....................................................................................................... 5
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(aa) ................................................................................................. 5
15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) .................................................................................................. 6
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) ........................................................................................................ 9
RULES
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ................................................................ 2, 5, 7, 8
iii
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 5 of 17
MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron
Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden and Tenzin Woiser (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) will move, before the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga, United States District Judge
for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, at Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United
States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue Room 12-2, Miami, Florida 33128, on a date and at
a time designated by the Court, for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as Lead Plaintiffs in the present
action and appointing their counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as Lead Counsel in the present matter.
This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion of
Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden and
Tenzin Woiser to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Approve Their Selection of Lead Counsel and
accompanying exhibits, the declaration of Sarah N. Westcot, and the certifications of Plaintiffs
submitted herewith.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko, Michael McFadden,
and Tenzin Woiser (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby move for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs in
these consolidated actions against Robinhood Financial, LLC (“Robinhood Financial”),
Robinhood Securities, LLC (“Robinhood Securities”), and Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Robinhood
Markets”) (collectively, “Robinhood” or “Defendants”) for prohibiting their customers from
buying multiple publicly traded stocks, including but not limited to GameStop (“GME”), AMC
Entertainment (“AMC”), American Airlines (“AAL”), Nokia (“NOK”), BlackBerry Limited
(“BB”), Bed Bath & Beyond (“BBBY”), Express (“EXPR”), Koss Corporation (“KOSS”), Naked
1
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 6 of 17
Brand Group (“NAKD”), Sundial Growers, Inc. (“SNDL”), Tootsie Roll Industries (“TR”), and
Trivago NV (“TRVG”) (collectively, the “Stocks”), during an unprecedented rise in valuation of
the aforementioned Stocks. Because Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendants engaged
in market manipulation in violation of federal securities laws, each have the largest financial stake
with respect to the individual Stocks they purchased, and because Plaintiffs otherwise prima facie
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their motion should
be granted.
II. BACKGROUND
These consolidated matters against Robinhood arise due to Robinhood’s market-
manipulative conduct in outright restricting or substantially limiting open market trading of the
Stocks on its platform. In short, these Stocks were heavily shorted by various hedge funds and
institutional investors. Because of the unusually high amount of shorted stock, an organized group
of retail investors effectuated a short squeeze as to the Stocks, many of whom used the Robinhood
platform. The short-squeeze strategy largely consisted of purchasing as many outstanding shares
of the Stocks as possible, combined with purchasing call options “out of the money.” As the
Stocks rose in value due to the increased purchasing of shares, the increasing Stock valuation
moved the share price closer to the strike price of the call options (closer to being “in the money”).
Faced with rapidly increasing share prices (and greater and greater losses for those holding short
positions), persons or entities shorting the Stocks began to close their short positions to mitigate
loss, which had the effect of further increasing the share price. Faced with the prospect of delivery
on the out of the money call options, market makers were pressured to hedge by purchasing the
Stocks should delivery be required, which further drove up the Stocks’ price. This feedback loop
put tremendous pressure on Robinhood, which was required to post increasingly high amounts of
2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 7 of 17
collateral as required by its regulator. Faced with this mounting pressure, and indeed a threat to
its very existence, Robinhood intentionally interfered with the otherwise free market and heavily
restricted, if not completely eliminated, purchasing any additional shares of the Stocks and allowed
only selling or closing of positions. This had the effect of deflating the short squeeze, as the
artificial conditions created by Robinhood prevented further buying but freed up shares to be used
to replenish its inventory. In short, Robinhood chose its own interests before its customers’
interests, and violated federal securities laws as the means of doing so.
Specifically, on or about January 11, 2021, stocks in GME, AMC, and NOK, among others,
began to rise. However, on or around January 27, 2021, these Stocks were no longer available for
purchase by retail investors on Defendants’ platforms. For example, on Robinhood, the Stocks
featured an icon that read, “This stock is not supported on Robinhood”:
By prohibiting the purchase of the Stocks, Defendants denied their customers the ability to
3
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 8 of 17
purchase shares of Stocks rapidly rising in valuation, and through their market-manipulative
actions caused a steep decline in the value of the Stocks.
Robinhood knew that its manipulative conduct was to the detriment of its customers.
Robinhood’s CEO, Vlad Tenev, stated publicly in an interview with Elon Musk that “as a clearing
broker, and this is where Robinhood Securities comes in, we have to put up money to the NSCC
[National Securities Clearing Corporation],” and that the NSCC gave Robinhood a file requesting
deposit of $3 billion dollars, later lowered to $1.4 billion through negotiations, and again reduced
to $700 million, which Robinhood paid. Elon Musk then asked Mr. Tenev “[i]s anyone holding
you hostage right now?” To which Mr. Tenev answered “no.” In discussing the decision to have
position closing only, Mr. Tenev said “we knew this was a bad outcome for customers.”1
As a result of Robinhood’s conduct, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint captioned Quat, et al. v.
Robinhood Financial, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-21404 (S.D. Fl.) alleging violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78(j)(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC. Pursuant to the PSLRA, Plaintiffs filed certifications with their Complaint
attesting, among other things, that they are willing to serve as representative parties on behalf of
the Class and setting forth the financial losses suffered by them as a result of Robinhood’s conduct.
The certifications are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Under The PSLRA
The PSLRA “requires the court to appoint a ‘lead plaintiff’ in private securities class
actions who is ‘the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines
1
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/02/01/elon_musk_interviews_robinhood_ceo_vla
d_tenev_on_stock_tradigin_restrictions_on_clubhouse_app.html (last visited 2/2/21).
4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 9 of 17
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.’” In re Bank of Am.
Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 258 F.R.D. 260, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
4(a)(3)(B)(iii) states, in pertinent part:
Subject to subclause (II), for purposes of clause (i), the court shall
adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any private
action arising under this chapter is the person or group of persons
that—
(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a
notice under subparagraph (A)(i);
(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.
Here, Plaintiffs satisfy each of these factors.
1. Plaintiffs Filed A Complaint
As noted above, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Southern District of Florida with regard
to this matter. See Complaint (ECF No. 1), Quat, et al. v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-21404 (S.D. Fl.). Along with their Complaint, each Plaintiff filed a certification, in
accordance with the PSLRA, certifying that they are willing to serve as Lead Plaintiffs in this
action and are willing to assume the duties as representative Plaintiffs. See Ex. A. As such,
Plaintiffs satisfy 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(aa).
2. Plaintiffs Have The Largest Financial Interest
“The most important factor in determining the lead plaintiff is the amount of financial
interest claimed.” Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs., 209 F.R.D. 499, 502 (S.D. Fla. 2002). In this
District, it is well settled that individual plaintiffs may aggregate their losses into a group to show
the largest financial interest. See id. at 503 (“The idea that plaintiffs may aggregate their losses
5
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 10 of 17
into a group to show the largest financial interest derives from the language of the PSLRA which
states that the most adequate plaintiff is the ‘person or group of persons.’”) (quoting 15 U.S.C. §
78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)); id. at 503-04 (“This Court adopts the reasoning of the Third Circuit and
finds that aggregation is acceptable for the purposes of lead plaintiff in private securities
litigation.”). “In determining the largest financial interest, courts consider: (1) the number of
shares purchased during the class period; (2) the amount of the investment, and (3) the ‘alleged
losses.’” Sheet Metal Workers Loc. 28 Pension Fund v. Off. Depot, Inc., 2008 WL 1943955, at *2
(S.D. Fla. May 2, 2008).
Here, there is no question that Plaintiffs, individually and in the aggregate, have suffered
the largest financial loss. This case is somewhat unique in that there are several Stocks at issue,
not just one. This group of Plaintiffs represents a broad spectrum of the Stocks, making them
particularly qualified to serve as Lead Plaintiffs.2 A list of the Stocks purchased by each Plaintiff
is set forth below,3 as well as in the certifications attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Plaintiff Name Stocks Purchased Through Robinhood and
Number of Shares Held At The Time Of
Robinhood’s Manipulative Conduct
Tenzin Woiser NOK (648 Shares)
Mike Ross BBBY (22 Shares)
Michael McFadden AMC (42.823663 Shares)
SNDL (100 Shares)
Eric Quat SNDL (309 Shares)
NOK (75 Shares)
AMC (50 Shares)
Aaron Fassinger NAKD (149 Shares)
Igor Kravchenko GME (150 Shares)
2
On the contrary, a solitary lead plaintiff who purchased only one or a few of the Stocks at issue
may raise standing concerns at class certification as to the Stocks at issue not purchased by the
representative Plaintiff. Garcia v. Kashi Co., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1395 (S.D. Fla. 2014)
Garcia v. Kashi Co., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1395 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (“Plaintiffs’ lack standing to
assert claims regarding products they did not purchase . . .”)
3
This share count reflects the number of shares purchased on or before January 28, 2021, in
accordance with the class definition set forth in the Complaint. Complaint ¶ 68.
6
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 11 of 17
Plaintiffs were injured by the combination of 1) selling shares at a loss on or after 1/28/21
and 2) losing the value of shares still held as a result of Robinhood’s manipulative conduct.
Individually and aggregated, Plaintiffs have suffered the largest financial loss as a result of
Defendant’s conduct.
3. Plaintiffs Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23
Plaintiffs also satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. At this juncture, namely at the stage of
appointing a lead plaintiff or plaintiffs, only a prima facie showing is required. See, e.g.,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharm., Inc., 467 F. Supp. 3d 270, 277 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (“The Inovio Group
makes a prima facie showing of typicality”); In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 265 (3d
Cir. 2001) (requiring that the Rule 23 factors be “preliminarily satisfied” at the appointment of
lead plaintiff stage); In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 247 F.R.D. 432, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“At this
point, a prospective lead plaintiff need only make a preliminary, prima facie showing that his or
her claims satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.”). As one Florida federal court explained:
A wide-ranging analysis under Rule 23 is not appropriate and should
be left for consideration of a motion for class certification. This
inquiry, therefore, focuses on the qualities of the class
representatives enumerated in 23(a)(3) and 23(a)(4), that is,
typicality and adequacy. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 23. The language of the
Act envisions this delineation, which directs attention to “unique
defenses” that may apply to a presumptive “most adequate” plaintiff
and whether that plaintiff will “adequately represent” the class. The
analysis inevitably comes down to the one question of whether
Movant will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
The Court must determine whether Movant is entitled to the
presumption, whether Plaintiff has rebutted that presumption, or
whether Plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable basis for taking
discovery.
Fischler v. AMSouth Bancorporation, 1997 WL 118429, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 1997).
As to adequacy, “[t]he determination of fair and adequate representation rests on two bases:
7
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 12 of 17
common interests between representative and the class and a willingness and ability to vigorously
prosecute the action.” Id. at *3. Here, proposed Lead Plaintiffs satisfy both typicality and
adequacy.
a. Typicality
“Under Rule 23, typicality is present when the lead plaintiff's claims arise from the same
series of events and are based on the same legal theories as the claims of other class members.”
Plymouth Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Carter's, Inc., 2009 WL 692141, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2009).
“Claims need not be identical to be typical.” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the other class members because all class
members bring claims under federal securities laws; specifically, Robinhood’s market-
manipulative conduct effected all class members identically. There are no defenses relevant to
these proposed Lead Plaintiffs that are unique to Lead Plaintiffs. Further, Lead Plaintiffs’ interests
are not in conflict with the interests of any other class member. Id. at *3 (“Plaintiff can adequately
represent a class of investors because it has no interests that conflict with other class members . .
.”).
b. Adequacy
Rule 23’s adequacy requirement “means that the class representative has common interests
with unnamed class members and will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through
qualified counsel.” Piazza v. Ebsco Indus., Inc., 273 F.3d 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2001). “In
evaluating the adequacy factor, the Court follows the general principle that adequacy of
representation is primarily based on the forthrightness and vigor with which the representative
party can be expected to assert and defend the interests of the class and whether plaintiffs have
interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” Campos v. ChoicePoint, Inc., 237 F.R.D.
8
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 13 of 17
478, 487 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs have every intention of vigorously litigating the claims on behalf of the
class. Indeed, Plaintiffs have certified that they are willing to serve as representative plaintiffs,
including attending deposition and trial. See Ex. A. Further, Plaintiffs have retained counsel
highly qualified in complex class action litigation who intend to devote the necessary time and
resources to this litigation, as set forth below. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Bursor & Fisher, was
recently approved as lead counsel in another securities action against Robinhood by Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California. See 4/12/21 Order (ECF No. 55), Kwon
v. Robinhood Financial LLC et al, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal).4 Neither proposed
Lead Plaintiffs or Proposed Lead Counsel have any interests that are antagonistic to the interests
of the rest of the class.
B. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed Lead Counsel
Pursuant to the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff has authority to select lead counsel. 15 U.S.C. §
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select
and retain counsel to represent the class.”). “So long as the lead plaintiff has made ‘a reasonable
choice of counsel, the district court should generally defer to that choice.’” Inchen Huang v.
Depomed, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court
for N. Dist. of California, 586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009)).
Here, proposed Lead Counsel has substantial experience handling class actions and other
complex litigation, including successful experience litigating, settling, and, where necessary,
trying certified class action cases. Bursor & Fisher lawyers have been court-appointed counsel or
4
The Order is attached to the Declaration of Sarah N. Westcot (“Westcot Dec.”) as Exhibit B.
See Westcot Dec. ¶ 8.
9
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 14 of 17
interim class counsel in more than 30 class actions. See Westcot Dec., ¶ 6, and firm resume
attached thereto as Exhibit A. Bursor & Fisher has also proven that it can – and will – take cases
to trial if necessary, having won multi-million-dollar verdicts or recoveries in six of six civil jury
trials in consumer class action cases since 2008. Westcot Dec., at ¶ 5. Bursor & Fisher’s most
recent class action trial victory came in May 2019 in Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Case No.
16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.), in which Bursor & Fisher served as lead trial counsel and won a
$267 million jury verdict against a debt collector found to have violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Id. Also, while serving as lead trial counsel in Thomas v. Global Vision Products,
Inc., Bursor & Fisher obtained a $50 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and class on a
CLRA claim. Id. In another example, Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Bursor & Fisher obtained a
$299 million trial verdict for a class of Sprint customers. Id. Bursor & Fisher also has substantial
experience in multidistrict litigation, including holding plaintiffs’ leadership positions in In re
Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 9:20-md-02924 (S.D. Fl.) (Rosenberg,
J.) (S. Westcot appointed to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee), In re Valsartan Losartan and
Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:19-md-02875 (D.N.J.) (Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee), American Medical Collection Agency, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 2:19-md-02904 (D.N.J.) (Bankruptcy Liaison Counsel). Finally, Bursor &
Fisher has an active securities practice, and is presently litigating matters involving federal
securities laws, including matters against Robinhood. See Kwon v. Robinhood Financial LLC et
al, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal) (appointed co-lead counsel).
Bursor & Fisher also has the resources to devote to this litigation. Bursor & Fisher is a
well-established, successful law firm that has the resources and personnel necessary to pursue a
case of this magnitude, as they have demonstrated in numerous similar large-scale class actions.
10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 15 of 17
Bursor & Fisher has already demonstrated the will and ability to commit the necessary resources
to assure a strong and well-supported case on behalf of members of the proposed class. The firm’s
resources are not merely financial, but also include substantial expertise and work-product as
discussed above, which were developed in other similar cases that will benefit Plaintiffs and the
putative class. Other courts have opined on the resources and commitment of Bursor & Fisher in
representing clients in class action cases. For instance, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the
Eastern District of California appointed Bursor & Fisher as interim class counsel in Melgar v.
Zicam, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014). Westcot Decl., ¶ 10; Exhibit
C to Westcot Decl., Oct. 29, 2014 Order in Melgar v. Zicam, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC,
ECF No. 21. Judge England’s order noted that Bursor & Fisher “has extensive experience
representing plaintiffs in large class actions, both in negotiating settlements and litigating through
trial.” Id. Judge England further commented that “Bursor & Fisher is a well-established, reputable
firm that is up to handling the challenges of this litigation and is capable of committing the requisite
resources to doing so. The Court is confident that Bursor & Fisher will fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class.” Id. (citation omitted).
Given proposed Lead Counsel’s qualifications, this Court should approve proposed Lead
Plaintiffs’ choice of counsel.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their motion
to appoint them as Lead Plaintiffs and approve their selection of Lead Counsel.
[signature block on following page]
11
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 16 of 17
Dated: April 14, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot (FBN: 1018272)
Rachel Miller (FBN: 119778)
Stephen Beck (FBN: 1010183)
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
rmiller@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2021 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(3)
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(A)(3), counsel for movants have conferred with all parties or
non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve
the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so. Counsel for Plaintiff Cody Todd has
advised that Mr. Todd opposes the motion. Counsel for Robinhood advised that Robinhood takes
no position on the motion.
By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 14, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day to all counsel of record in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices
of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel
or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot
13
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.144.0.pdf
- Size
- 368,616 bytes
- SHA-256
- 64f8af288853345dafb4fc0d488372ad21e7be88af420dcd2e9055d3dde38946
- Original
- archive.org