Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion of Movants Abe Kurdi and Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 365, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
A Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion of Movants Abe Kurdi and Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA (Case No. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres), entered July 27, 2021 as Document 365 (19 pages) over the /s/ signature of Sarah N. Westcot. The movants ask to be appointed lead plaintiffs under the PSLRA, arguing that they moved in response to the republished notice, have the largest financial interest and satisfy Rule 23 typicality and adequacy, and ask that their counsel be appointed lead counsel. The Local Rule 7.1 certification states that counsel for Cody Todd opposed the initial lead plaintiff motion of April 14, 2021, that Robinhood took no position, and that neither has indicated a change in 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 and Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion of Movants Abe Kurdi and Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon (Dkt. 365).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-07-27-campos-v-choicepoint-inc/
, SHA-256 93b4d6b2a920e71dc3a51ce9c217cd10dd458e29972e2c761b39112376537c40.Full text
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 1 of 19
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
MOVANTS ABE KURDI AND TEODORO RUSSELL PUEYRREDON
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 2 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1
MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 2
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2
II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2
III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 6
A. Movants Should Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Under The PSLRA.................... 6
1. Movants Made A Motion In Response To The Republished Notice .......... 6
2. Movants Have The Largest Financial Interest ............................................ 6
3. Movants Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23 .......................................... 9
a. Typicality ............................................................................................... 10
b. Adequacy ............................................................................................... 10
B. Movants’ Counsel Should Be Appointed Lead Counsel ................................... 11
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 13
i
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 3 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S)
CASES
Campos v. ChoicePoint, Inc.,
237 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Ga. 2006)............................................................................................... 10
Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California,
586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 11
Eastwood Enterprises v. Farha,
2008 WL 687351 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2008) ............................................................................. 7
Fischler v. AMSouth Bancorporation,
1997 WL 118429 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 1997) ................................................................................ 9
In re 21st Century Holding Co. Sec. Litig.,
2007 WL 9220955 (S.D. Fla. 2007) ........................................................................................... 7
In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.,
258 F.R.D. 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................................................ 6
In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)........................................................................................................ 9
In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig.,
247 F.R.D. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................................................ 9
Inchen Huang v. Depomed, Inc.,
289 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................... 11
McDermid v. Inovio Pharm., Inc.,
467 F. Supp. 3d 270 (E.D. Pa. 2020) .......................................................................................... 9
Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs.,
209 F.R.D. 499 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ................................................................................................. 7
Piazza v. Ebsco Indus., Inc.,
273 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 10
Plumbers & Pipefitters Loc. 51 Pension Fund v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.,
2008 WL 2608111 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2008) .............................................................................. 7
Plymouth Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Carter's, Inc.,
2009 WL 692141 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2009)............................................................................. 10
ii
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 4 of 19
Sheet Metal Workers Loc. 28 Pension Fund v. Off. Depot, Inc.,
2008 WL 1943955 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2008) ............................................................................... 8
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. § 78(j)(b) ........................................................................................................................ 5
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 ....................................................................................................................... 1, 5
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) ....................................................................................................... 6
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(aa) ................................................................................................. 6
15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) .................................................................................................. 7
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) ...................................................................................................... 11
RULES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ....................................................................... 2, 6, 9, 10
iii
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 5 of 19
MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, Movants Abe Kurdi and
Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon (collectively “Movants”) 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
Movants as Lead Plaintiffs in the present action and appointing their counsel, Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., as Lead Counsel in the present matter. In the alternative, each Movant moves individually
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of counsel Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Lead
Counsel should the Court decline to appoint them as a group. This Motion is supported by the
accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion of Movants to Appoint Lead
Plaintiffs and Approve Their Selection of Lead Counsel and accompanying exhibits, the
declaration of Sarah N. Westcot, and the certifications of Movants submitted herewith.
1
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 6 of 19
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
Movants Abe Kurdi and Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon (collectively “Movants”) hereby
move for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated actions against Robinhood Financial,
LLC (“Robinhood Financial”), Robinhood Securities, LLC (“Robinhood Securities”), Robinhood
Markets, Inc. (“Robinhood Markets”) (collectively, “Robinhood” or “Defendant”), for prohibiting
or restricting 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 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. Movants have reviewed complaints
filed in this action alleging that Defendants engaged in market manipulation in violation of federal
securities laws and have authorized the filing of a complaint on their behalf, collectively have the
largest financial stake in the litigation, and because Movants otherwise prima facie satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their motion should be granted.
In the alternative, each Movant moves individually for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for
appointment of counsel Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Lead Counsel should the Court decline to appoint
them as a group.
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
2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 7 of 19
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’s trading 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 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 those of its customers, 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 Robinhood’s platform. For example, on Robinhood, the Stocks
3
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 8 of 19
featured an icon that read, “This stock is not supported on Robinhood”:
By prohibiting the purchase of the Stocks, Robinhood denied their customers the ability to
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
1
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/02/01/elon_musk_interviews_robinhood_ceo_vlad_tenev_on_stock_
tradigin_restrictions_on_clubhouse_app.html (last visited 2/2/21).
4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 9 of 19
As a result of Robinhood’s conduct, numerous complaints were filed 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. After consolidation of the securities cases with the common
law consumer class actions, an initial round of lead plaintiff motions under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, were filed. Specifically, the Court
considered a motion by Mr. Cody Todd, represented by the Rosen Law Firm P.A. (“Rosen”), and
a competing motion filed by Plaintiffs Eric Quat, Aaron Fassinger, Mike Ross, Igor Kravchenko,
Michael McFadden and Tenzin Woiser, represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. On May 17, 2021,
the Court entered an Order denying both motions. See May 17, 2021 Order (“Order”) (ECF No.
307). The Court denied Rosen’s motion because the published notice omitted “critical
information” such as the case name, docket number, and court where the action was pending. Id.
at 5-6. Further, the Court noted that the notice was deficient because interested class members
were “faced with a broken hyperlink” and were “left with no choice but to contact the law firm
listed.” Id. at 6. The Court directed Rosen to “republish notice addressing the identified
deficiencies.” Id. at 7.
Rosen republished notice on May 28, 2021 (ECF No. 321). In response to that notice,
Movants now file their motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs and for approval of their selection of
counsel, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Pursuant to the PSLRA, Movants have executed certifications
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 to the accompanying Declaration of Sarah N. Westcot (“Westcot
Dec.”) as Exhibit A.
5
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 10 of 19
III. ARGUMENT
A. Movants 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
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, Movants satisfy each of these factors.
1. Movants Made A Motion In Response To The Republished Notice
Movants have brought the present motion in response to the republished notice and have
filed herewith PSLRA certifications attesting that they are willing to serve as representatives of
the class, are willing to assume the duties and responsibilities of being class representatives, and
are willing to provide testimony at deposition and at trial, as necessary. See Westcot Dec., Ex. A.
As such, Movants satisfy 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(aa).
2. Movants Have The Largest Financial Interest
“The most important factor in determining the lead plaintiff is the amount of financial
6
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 11 of 19
interest claimed.” Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs., 209 F.R.D. 499, 502 (S.D. Fla. 2002). In this
District and the Eleventh Circuit more generally, it is well settled that investors 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 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 re 21st Century Holding Co. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL
9220955, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (“When moving for lead plaintiff, aggregation of individual losses
to form a small group is acceptable and derives from the language of the PSLRA which states that
the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons.”) (Internal citations omitted);
Plumbers & Pipefitters Loc. 51 Pension Fund v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 2008 WL 2608111, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2008) (permitting two pension funds to aggregate their losses and appointing
them as a group of lead plaintiffs); Eastwood Enterprises v. Farha, 2008 WL 687351, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Mar. 11, 2008) (“District courts within the Eleventh Circuit have allowed aggregation of a
group's loss in order to determine whether the group is the presumptively most adequate
plaintiff.”). Further, “[t]here is no requirement contained in the PSLRA that the group of persons
serving as lead plaintiff have a relationship among themselves. Instead, the PSLRA focuses on
whether the person or group that is the proposed lead plaintiff can fairly and adequately serve as
the lead plaintiff.” Newman, 209 F.R.D. at 503–04; see also Eastwood Enterprises, 2008 WL
687351, at *2 (“We note at this juncture that we disagree with those courts that have held that the
statute invariably precludes a group of ‘unrelated individuals’ from serving as a lead plaintiff. The
statute contains no requirement mandating that the members of a proper group be ‘related’ in some
7
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 12 of 19
manner”) (citation omitted).
“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 Movants have suffered the largest financial loss. Currently
before the Court are two competing class definitions. The class definition alleged in the complaint
filed by Bursor & Fisher reads, “[a]ll persons within the United States who purchased one or more
of the Stocks through Robinhood on or before January 28, 2021.” Dkt. No. 1 Case No. 1:21-cv-
21404 ¶ 68. The class definition alleged by the Rosen Law Firm is “a class of all persons other
than defendants sold the Affected Securities on the Robinhood trading platform on or after January
28, 2021, and who were damaged thereby.” Dkt. No. 1, Case No. 2:21-cv-01729 ¶ 26. Movants’
losses are analyzed under both definitions below. A list of the Stocks purchased by each Movant
is also set forth below and in Movants’ certifications attached to the Westcot Declaration as Exhibit
A.
BURSOR & FISHER CLASS DEFINITION:
Movant Name Brokerage Stock Loss
Abe Kurdi Robinhood GME $4,094.83
Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon Robinhood GME $4,318.27
ROSEN CLASS DEFINITION:
Movant Name Brokerage Stock Loss
Abe Kurdi Robinhood GME $9,917.98
Teodoro Russell Pueyrredon Robinhood GME $6,321.72
In total, Movants suffered a total loss of $8,413.10 under Bursor & Fisher’s class definition.
Utilizing the Rosen Law Firm’s alleged class definition, Movants suffered a total loss of
8
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 13 of 19
$16,239.70. Regardless of which class definition is used, Movants have the largest financial stake
in the litigation..
3. Movants Satisfy The Requirements of Rule 23
Movants 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:
common interests between representative and the class and a willingness and ability to vigorously
prosecute the action.” Id. at *3. Here, Movants satisfy both typicality and adequacy.
9
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 14 of 19
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, Movants’ 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
Movants that are unique to Movants. Further, Movants’ 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.
478, 487 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citation omitted).
Here, Movants have every intention of vigorously litigating the claims on behalf of the
class. Indeed, Movants have certified that they are willing to serve as representative plaintiffs,
including attending deposition and trial. See Westcot Dec., Ex. A. Further, Movants have retained
10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 15 of 19
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, Movants’ counsel, Bursor & Fisher,
was recently approved as lead counsel in another securities action 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). 2 Neither proposed Lead Plaintiffs
or Proposed Lead Counsel have any interests that are antagonistic to the interests of the rest of the
class.
B. Movants’ 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
interim class counsel in more than 30 class actions. See Westcot Dec., ¶ 6, and firm resume
attached thereto as Exhibit C. 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.
2
The Order is attached to the Westcot Dec. Exhibit B. See Westcot Dec. ¶ 8.
11
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 16 of 19
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.
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
12
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 17 of 19
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
D 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, Movants respectfully request that this Court grant their motion
to appoint them as Lead Plaintiffs and approve their selection of Lead Counsel.
Dated: July 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot (FBN: 1018272)
Rachel L. Miller (FBN: 119778)
Stephen A. Beck (FBN: 1010183)
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
13
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 18 of 19
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
rmiller@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
Attorneys for Movants
14
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2021 Page 19 of 19
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
advised that Mr. Todd opposed the initial lead plaintiff motion filed on April 14, 2021. Counsel
for Robinhood advised that they did not take a position as to the April 14, 2021 motion. Counsel
for Plaintiff Cody Todd and Robinhood have not indicated a change in position.
By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot
Sarah N. Westcot
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 27, 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
15
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.365.0.pdf
- Size
- 462,753 bytes
- SHA-256
- 93b4d6b2a920e71dc3a51ce9c217cd10dd458e29972e2c761b39112376537c40
- Original
- archive.org