case 3:20-cv-01626-jd document 38 filed 04/17/20 page 1 of …...2020/07/15 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION & MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL BECKMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD CLASS ACTION NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL Date: May 28, 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. James Donato Ctrm: 11, 19th Floor

-[captions continue on following page]-

Currently Related Cases: 3:20-cv-01769-JD; 3:20-cv-01800-JD; 3:20-cv-01877-JD Additional Related Cases: 5:20-cv-01909-LHK; 3:20-cv-02286-SK; 3:20-cv-02343-SK; 4:20-cv-02352-KAW; 5:20-cv-02594-SVK; 4:20-cv-02665-DMR; 3:20-cv-02669-JSC

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLPLaurence D. King (SBN 206423) Matthew B. George (SBN 239322) 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 [email protected] [email protected] COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP Mark C. Molumphy (SBN 168009) Tyson C. Redenberger (SBN 294424) San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs Beckman, Steinberg and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel for the Putative Class [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page]

Case 3:20-cv-01626-JD Document 38 Filed 04/17/20 of 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- ii - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION & MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

ALEXANDER ADAME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:20-cv-01769-JD

MICHAEL RIGGS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


COLIN PRENDERGAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- iii - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

ERIC JOHANN and LEILA KURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.


Defendants.

Case No. 5:20-cv-01909-LHK

BRYAN METZLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, v.


Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-02286-SK

JASON STEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, v.

ROBINHOOD MARKETS, Inc., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-02343-SK



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- iv - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

MENGNI XIA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, v.


Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-02352-KAW

ZAK FERRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, v.

ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:20-cv-02594-SVK

JOSEPH GWALTNEY, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

Plaintiff, v.

ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-02665-DMR

TRAVIS TAAFFE, and JARED WARD,

Plaintiffs v.

ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-02669-JSC


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- v - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION & MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION……………………………………………………….. vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED………………………………………………... viii

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................. 2

A. Robinhood and the Early March Outages ............................................................... 2

B. The Beckman Action and Additional Cases Are Filed ........................................... 4

III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6

A. The Court Should Consolidate the Robinhood Actions Because They Involve Common Questions of Law and Fact......................................................... 6

B. The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Establish A Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee ............................................................................. 6

1. The Court Should Appoint Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre as Interim Co-Lead Counsel ............................................................................ 6

2. The Court Should Grant Co-Lead Counsel Case Management Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 11

C. The Court Should Appoint Liaison Counsel and Establish An Executive Committee To Further Advance The Prosecution Of This Litigation .................. 12

D. The Court Should Approve the Following Briefing Schedule .............................. 14

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

- vi - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

CASES

Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., No. C 10-0502 RS, 2011 WL 13141425 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2011) ........................................... 6

Flores v. Velocity Exp., Inc., No. 12-cv-05790-JST, 2013 WL 2468362 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2013) ........................................ 7

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., Nos. 11-cv-2861-SC, 10-cv-5591-SC, 2012 WL 6095089 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) ............... 6

Solannex, Inc. v. Misaole, Inc., Nos. CV 11-00171 PSG, CV 12-00832 PSG, 2013 WL 430984 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) ....... 6

RULES

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(g) .................................................................................................................................. 7 Rule 23(g)(1) .............................................................................................................................. 7 Rule 23(g)(3) .............................................................................................................................. 6 Rule 42(a) ................................................................................................................................... 6

TREATISES

David F. Herr, Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 10.221 (4th ed.) (May 2019) ............................................................................................. 7, 12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- vii - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 28, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor

of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,

located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, California 94102, Plaintiffs Daniel Beckman, Alexander

Adame, Michael Riggs, Colin Prendergast, Eric Johann, Leila Kuri, Bryan Metzler, Jason

Steinberg, Mengia Xia, Zak Ferris, Travis Taaffe and Jared Ward (“Plaintiffs”), all of whom have

pending cases in the Northern District of California, will move the Court for consolidation and

appointment of interim co-lead class counsel.

Pursuant to Rules 42(a)(2) and 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs

move for consolidation of the above-captioned actions (the “Robinhood Actions”) and seek the

appointment of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (“Kaplan Fox”) and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy,

LLP (“Cotchett Pitre”), to serve as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class of

Robinhood customers in the United States asserting common law contract, tort, and statutory

consumer protection claims. These claims arise from Robinhood’s alleged failure to implement

and maintain adequate infrastructure necessary to effectuate electronic trading of securities, leading

to widespread outages beginning on March 2 and 3, 2020, during which customers were unable to

access their accounts and place trades. Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint liaison counsel

and establish an executive committee to facilitate the best, efficient, and most effective

representation of the proposed class. Plaintiffs’ motion is based on this notice, the memorandum

of points and authorities that follows, the accompanying Joint Declaration of Laurence D. King and

Mark C. Molumphy, the proposed order, and such other matters as the Court may consider.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- viii - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

1. Should the Court consolidate the related federal Robinhood Actions representing a

putative class alleging similar questions of law and fact under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42(a)?

2. Should the Court appoint Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre as interim co-lead class

counsel to manage the consolidated Robinhood Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(g), and appoint an executive committee to support interim co-lead class counsel?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs in the first ten of the Robinhood Actions currently pending in federal court

respectfully request that the Court consolidate all related putative class actions in the Northern

District, appoint Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre as interim co-lead class counsel (“Co-Lead

Counsel”), appoint liaison counsel, and establish a Plaintiffs’ executive committee (“Executive

Committee”), and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and the briefing of the

Robinhood Defendants’ contemplated motion(s) to dismiss. Notably, the Court has already

formally related four of the cases filed in the Northern District of California, and Plaintiffs have

facilitated the agreed-upon transfer of a related matter filed in the Middle District of Florida, Taaffe,

et al., v. Robinhood Financial LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02669-JSC, which should also be

consolidated now that it is transferred. Plaintiffs and Robinhood1 agree the consolidated cases

should proceed forward under the caption: “In re: Robinhood Financial Services Litigation.”

Plaintiffs and Robinhood support consolidation. Robinhood also joins in the request to establish a

schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and the briefing of Robinhood’s contemplated

motion(s) to dismiss.

In addition to consolidation, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to appoint Co-Lead Counsel, which

will ensure that the prosecution of the cases is streamlined for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the other

members of the proposed class (“Class”), as well as the Court. Co-Lead Counsel have conferred

with Plaintiffs’ counsel in ten of the related matters regarding the benefits of appointing Co-Lead

Counsel, and plaintiffs in each of the cases support the appointment of Kaplan Fox and Cotchett

Pitre to serve in that role. As detailed below, Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre have decades of

experience representing consumers and investors in complex class actions and coordinated

proceedings in the Northern District and nationwide, and have achieved subject matter expertise in

consumer protection, securities regulation, and technology, and have many notable results that

demonstrate they will capably and efficiently manage the litigation on behalf of the Class.

1 “Robinhood” collectively refers to the current Defendants in the Robinhood Actions, including Robinhood Financial, LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, and Robinhood Markets, Inc.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiffs also respectfully request that the Court appoint liaison counsel and approve the

proposed Executive Committee. The six attorneys Plaintiffs propose to serve on the Executive

Committee possess substantial experience in securities, consumer fraud, and technology-based

complex class action litigation. When deployed efficiently, the Executive Committee members

will contribute valuable expertise and resources to the prosecution of this case. Additionally,

proposed Liaison Counsel can employ and manage a timekeeping protocol and keep the Parties and

Court informed on any corollary proceedings.

Finally, the parties have agreed on a schedule for the briefing of the consolidated case.

Plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint 30 days following the Court’s entry of an order

consolidating the cases. Robinhood will file its contemplated motion to dismiss 45 days later;

Plaintiffs will file an opposition 45 days after Robinhood’s motion, and Robinhood will file a reply

30 days after Plaintiffs’ opposition. The matter will be set for hearing on the next available date

on the Court’s motion calendar no less than two weeks after the reply brief is submitted.

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Robinhood and the Early March Outages

Robinhood is an online brokerage firm founded in 2013 that touts itself as “a pioneer in

commission-free investing.” Robinhood’s customers place securities trades through the firm’s

website or by using a web-based application (or “app”) on customers’ phones. Robinhood permits

customers, when its trading platform is operational, to purchase and sell certain securities, including

option contracts. The company reported in December 2019 to have 10 million users, yet it has no

storefront offices and operates entirely online.2

Unfortunately for Robinhood’s customers, including Plaintiffs, Robinhood’s trading

systems completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020, and experienced a total outage of its

operating systems through the morning of Tuesday, March 3, 2020, and there are reports of

subsequent outages the following week of shorter duration (the “Outages”). Throughout the

Outages, Robinhood’s customers were prevented from making any securities trades. As a result of

2 See https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/04/start-up-robinhood-tops-10-million-accounts-even-as-industry-follows-in-free-trading-footsteps.html, (last visited April 6, 2020).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


the Outages, Robinhood’s customers were unable to buy or sell securities or to exercise option

contracts (including those that were expiring). Customers were also unable during this time to

obtain information or meaningful support from Robinhood customer service specific to their

individual investment needs. Customers were left with no recourse during the Outages—they were

forced to simply sit and wait for the services to be re-established. Robinhood has acknowledged

the Outages, which it attributes to stress on its systems, but “[s]oftware mishaps have rocked

Robinhood before,” including in 2018, for example, when its options trading service had an

outage that locked consumers out of their accounts and stopped them from closing positions[.]”3

Plaintiffs generally allege that in offering brokerage trading services, Robinhood assumed a

duty to ensure that its systems, online or otherwise, were sufficiently equipped to reliably deliver

timely trading services under foreseeable customer demands and market conditions, including via

its contracts with Class members and regulatory conditions promulgated by the Financial Industry

Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), which governs broker-dealers like Robinhood. Plaintiffs

understood and reasonably believed that Robinhood had or would take such steps, but it did not.

As a result, Robinhood failed to adequately or properly equip itself technologically and have all the

necessary infrastructure to maintain Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ access to trading services. Due

solely to its own negligence, Robinhood breached obligations owed to Plaintiffs and Class members

and caused them substantial losses, which were compounded by the magnitude of the Outages, its

timing on one of the largest upward point shifts in the markets, the absence of alternative means

for customers to protect their investments, and lack of communication and customer support.4

Robinhood’s conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiffs. First, the loss of access to

Robinhood’s trading platform and absence of customer service support caused concrete,

particularized, and actual damages for many Robinhood customers, like Plaintiffs, many of whom

held options contracts expiring during the Outages. Second, given Robinhood’s lack of adequate

3 Bloomberg, Robinhood Maxed Out a Credit Line Last Month as Markets Fell, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-10/robinhood-maxed-out-credit-line-last-month-amid-market-tumult (last visited March 17, 2020). 4 Many of the Plaintiffs and other Class members are also “Gold” subscribers to Robinhood’s trading platforms, which purportedly provided them access to benefits in exchange for monthly fees that they allege they did not receive.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


infrastructure, Robinhood is not in compliance with the Parties’ contracts and Robinhood’s

regulatory obligations, putting Plaintiffs and the Class at a constant and continual risk that

Robinhood will have another Outage causing them further losses—which necessitates injunctive

and declaratory relief. Third, Robinhood has failed to provide the services consumers have paid

for in its monthly fee-based “Gold” program. Moreover, since the Robinhood Actions have been

filed, Robinhood has instituted a “Goodwill” program and self-administered claims process,

providing an unspecified procedure and purportedly nominal payments in exchange for the waiver

of important legal rights—exacerbating the damage to Class members by encouraging them into

giving up their legal rights despite the pendency of a host of class actions.5 Accordingly, Plaintiffs

have brought the Robinhood Actions to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

B. The Beckman Action and Additional Cases Are Filed

On March 5, 2020, on behalf of Plaintiff Daniel Beckman, Kaplan Fox and co-counsel filed

the first putative class action in the Northern District of California against Robinhood, which was

promptly served and assigned to Judge Donato. Joint Declaration of Laurence D. King and Mark C.

Molumphy, ¶ 2 (“Joint Decl.”). Plaintiff Beckman’s Complaint alleged a variety of common law

claims such as breach of contract and gross negligence, as well as violations of California consumer

protection statutes, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code

section 1750, et seq., and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business & Professions

Code section 17200, et seq. A day earlier, a similar action was filed in the Middle District of Florida

by the law firm Shumaker Loop & Kendrick LLP, Taaffe, et al., v. Robinhood Financial LLC, et

al., No. Case No. 8:20-cv-00513-CEH-SPF. On March 6, Cotchett Pitre filed the related Steinberg

Action, No. 3:20-cv-02286-SK, in San Mateo County Court, which was subsequently removed to

the Northern District.

5 Proposed Co-Lead Counsel has objected to Robinhood’s Goodwill program, demanding a meet and confer, and reserving all rights to seek correction of potentially misleading communications under Federal Civil Rule 23(d) and invalidation of misbegotten releases. Robinhood’s initial position is that it will not enforce the release against Class members from participating in the class cases, but that it will bar them from individual actions and prohibit any purported double recovery. These disputes are among the many that will benefit from consolidation and coordinated resolution or litigation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


As of the date of this filing, twelve cases have now been filed in or removed to the Northern

District of California by 17 different law firms: Case Name Case No. Filing DateBeckman 3:20-cv-01626-JD March 5, 2020Adame 3:20-cv-01769-JD March 12, 2020Riggs 3:20-cv-01800-JD March 13, 2020Prendergast 3:20-cv-01877-JD March 17, 2020Johann 5:20-cv-01909-LHK March 18, 2020Queen 3:20-cv-02090-TSH March 25, 2020 (*dismissed April 7, 2020)Metzler 3:20-cv-02286-SK April 3, 2020Steinberg 3:20-cv-02343-SK March 6, 2020 (removed from San Mateo County)Xia 4:20-cv-02352-KAW April 8, 2020Ferris 5:20-cv-02594-SVK April 14, 2020Gwaltney 4:20-cv-02665-DMR April 16, 2020Taaffe 3:20-cv-02669-JSC March 4, 2020 (transferred from M.D. Fla.)

Since the filing of the Robinhood Actions, proposed Co-Lead Counsel have taken a number

of steps to ensure the efficient coordination of the proceedings. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel have

reached out to (or were contacted by) counsel in all of the Robinhood Actions which facilitated

(1) the stipulated transfer of the Taaffe Action from the Middle District of Florida; (2) support for

consolidation in the Northern District of California without the need for multi-district litigation

proceedings; and (3) the negotiation of a leadership structure necessary to efficiently and

sufficiently prosecute the Robinhood Actions. Joint Decl., ¶ 5. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel have

also drafted and filed two administrative motions to relate the later-filed actions, filed a notice of

pendency of other actions, and have initiated coordinated outreach to Robinhood’s counsel to forge

a path forward for consolidation, subsequent pleadings, scheduling and motion practice. Id.

Proposed Co-Lead Counsel have also begun work with proposed Executive Committee firms on

research pertinent to the forthcoming consolidated complaint, have proactively begun discussing the

vetting and selection of class representatives, and shared research and information gained to date.

Id. Proposed Co-Lead Counsel have also requested a meet and confer with Robinhood about its

Goodwill program to make sure Class members receive fair communications and notice of the

pending actions, and have had initial discussions on reaching a stipulated resolution to the issue to

ensure that Class members’ claims are not waived or released, and drafted a proposed stipulation to

that effect. Id.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


III. ARGUMENT

A. The Court Should Consolidate the Robinhood Actions Because They Involve Common Questions of Law and Fact

Where cases before the same court “involve a common question of law or fact, the court

may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions;

or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The court

has “broad discretion to consolidate cases under Rule 42, either by motions submitted by the parties

or sua sponte.” Solannex, Inc. v. Misaole, Inc., Nos. CV 11-00171 PSG, CV 12-00832 PSG, 2013

WL 430984, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013). “The purpose of consolidation is not only to enhance

efficiency of the trial court by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and procedures, but also

to avoid inconsistent adjudications.” Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., No. C 10-0502 RS, 2011 WL

13141425, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2011). Consolidating the Robinhood Actions is appropriate

because all of the actions arise out of Robinhood’s March 2020 Outages, and all of the related

actions assert nearly identical legal claims. Each of the cases is also a putative class action on

behalf of overlapping, if not identical, putative classes, necessitating coordinated proceedings on

discovery, class certification, appeals, and trial. Moreover, Robinhood supports consolidation. The

Court should, therefore, consolidate the cases. See Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics,

Inc., Nos. 11-cv-2861-SC, 10-cv-5591-SC, 2012 WL 6095089, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012)

(finding consolidation appropriate because the cases involved common questions of law and fact

and no party opposed consolidation, and because consolidation would “speed trial and conserve the

parties’ resources, as well as the Court’s”).

B. The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Establish A Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

1. The Court Should Appoint Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre as Interim Co-Lead Counsel

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) authorizes the Court to “designate interim counsel

to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). Interim class counsel’s role is identical to the role of class counsel in a

certified class action: to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Id. The


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


designation of interim counsel “clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class

during precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any

necessary discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” David F. Herr,

Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 10.221 (4th ed.) (May 2019) (“Manual”).

The criteria the court should consider in appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel include:

i. the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;

ii. counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;

iii. counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and

iv. the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1); see also Flores v. Velocity Exp., Inc., No. 12-cv-05790-JST, 2013 WL

2468362, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2013) (analyzing factors above and stating that

“Rule 23(g)(1)(A), which applies to the appointment of class counsel, is also instructive in

evaluating interim class counsel.”). The Robinhood Actions lie at the intersection of consumer

protection, securities, and Silicon Valley startup technology-related litigation—areas of which the

proposed Co-Lead Counsel have significant expertise and notable results in class actions and

coordinated proceedings. Given their work on this matter to date and their collective experience

on other matters outlined below, Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre easily meet the Rule 23(g) criteria,

and Plaintiffs in ten of Robinhood Actions support their appointment (Plaintiffs are reaching out to

counsel in the latest-filed Gwaltney Action).

Kaplan Fox. Founded in 1954, Kaplan Fox is one of the most established plaintiffs’

litigation practices in the country, and the firm’s early commitment to high-stakes litigation

continues to define the firm to the present day. The National Law Journal has named Kaplan Fox

on its list of the nation’s top 10 “hot” litigation boutiques, a list that included both plaintiff and

defense firms. More than half of the firm’s partners have been rated “Super Lawyers.” Two of the

firm’s partners (Gregory Arenson and Robert Kaplan) were named among the 75 best plaintiffs’

lawyers in the country based on expertise and influence. Today, Kaplan Fox has 25 lawyers in four

litigation practice areas (antitrust, securities, consumer protection and cybersecurity/data privacy)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and a private client services group led by the former general counsel of Sotheby’s. To date, the firm

has recovered more than $5 billion for its clients and classes, including matters such as In re Bank

of America Corp. Sec. Deriv., and ERISA Litig., No. 1:09-md-020508-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), in which

as one of three co-lead counsel, Kaplan Fox recovered $2.425 billion for investors just weeks before

trial—one of the largest recoveries in the history of securities class actions; and In re Air Cargo

Shipping Servs., Antitrust Litig., No. 06-md-1775 (JG) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y.), in which as one of four

co-lead counsel representing direct purchasers alleging violations of antitrust laws, Kaplan Fox

recovered more than $1 billion in settlements. A firm biography highlighting these and other

significant results is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Declaration.

Kaplan Fox’s team in this matter will be led by Laurence D. King and Matthew B. George,

both of whom are based in the Bay Area at the firm’s Oakland office. Mr. King is currently

appointed by Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California as co-lead counsel to

manage the massive MDL concerning claims Apple deceived consumers by throttling processor

speeds of Apple devices like iPhones and iPads in In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation,

Case No. 18-md-02827-EJD. In his order appointing Kaplan Fox, Judge Davila found “that these

individuals and their firms have extensive knowledge of and experience in prosecuting complex

litigation and class actions” and noted that plaintiffs’ leadership “demonstrated an ability to

cooperate with a range of different interests that span across law firms, practice groups, geography,

and gender and introduce[d] smaller firms into the litigation experience.” Id., ECF No. 99 (May 15,

2018). As part of that litigation, Mr. King managed over a dozen steering committee firms and

successfully obtained a settlement of up to $500 million in case refunds that is currently pending

preliminary approval. Id., ECF No. 415. Mr. King has also been appointed by Courts in this

District and Circuit, and nationwide, to oversee class actions spanning securities fraud, consumer

protection, and Silicon Valley technology. Joint Decl., ¶ 9. See, e.g., Schueneman v. Arena

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-01959-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.) (settled for $24 million), In re

Violin Memory Sec. Litig., No. 13-CV-05486-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (settled for $7.5 million), and In In

re Yahoo Email Litigation, Case No. 5:13-cv-4980-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (obtained injunctive relief


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


prohibiting Yahoo! From scanning consumers’ emails in violation of wiretap laws). Joint Decl.,

¶ 9.

Mr. George has been representing consumers, employees, and investors in complex class

actions and multi-district litigation in the Northern District and nationwide for nearly 15 years. He

played a key role in the recently settled In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation,

coordinating and defending named plaintiffs’ depositions throughout the United States and

managing the third-party discovery committee that subpoenaed and negotiated document

productions from major retail and technology firms. Joint Decl., ¶ 10. He also recently assisted co-

lead counsel in the high profile In re: Arizona Theranos Incorporated Litigation, No. 2:16-cv-

02138-HRH, taking and defending eight key depositions in a case that was recently certified as a

class action on claims that Theranos and Walgreens manipulated blood testing protocols and

committed fraud. Id., ECF No. 372 (D. Az. Mar. 5, 2020); Joint Decl., ¶ 10. He has also gained

significant experience litigating against Silicon Valley tech startups and titans, including Yahoo!,

Adobe, and Logitech, and successfully enforced a subpoena against Symantec before Your Honor

as part of his role co-managing the subpoena committee in In re Target Corp. Customer Data

Security Breach Litig., No. 0:14-md-02522-PAM (D. Minn.).

Cotchett Pitre. Cotchett Pitre also has substantial experience representing investors and

consumers in class actions, and the firm has litigated consumer fraud, unfair competition, and

securities violations based on California law for decades. Joint Decl., ¶ 11. Cotchett Pitre is

recognized as one of the nation’s preeminent class action firms, regularly appearing on the National

Law Journal’s “Plaintiff’s Hot List.” The firm has also earned a national reputation for the breadth

of its practices and the results achieved for its clients, securing billions of dollars through trial and

settlements. Several of its attorneys have been inducted into the American College of Trial

Lawyers, honored as “Super Lawyers,” and selected to serve on government commissions and

boards of non-profit organizations. Id.

Cotchett Pitre is based in Burlingame, California, in close proximity to Robinhood’s Menlo

Park headquarters, and the firm’s attorneys and investigators have developed deep ties to the San

Francisco Peninsula community where Robinhood operates. Joint Decl., ¶ 12. Cotchett Pitre also


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


has extensive experience practicing in state and federal courts in California, including the Northern

District of California. Cotchett Pitre attorneys have served as lead counsel in many of the largest

and most significant complex and class actions in the area, litigating privacy, consumer protection,

investor fraud, antitrust and high-technology related cases. See Joint Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 2 (Firm

Resume).

For example, Cotchett Pitre served as lead counsel in In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, Case

No. 5:15-md-02624 (N.D. Cal.)—a data privacy and security case, where the Court found the firm

“particularly suitable” given its experience. Joint Decl., ¶ 13. Cotchett Pitre is currently co-lead

counsel with Kaplan Fox in In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation Case No. 5:18-md-

02827-EJD (N.D. Cal.), one of the largest consumer class actions in the nation, and helped negotiate

a settlement worth between $310 to $500 million now pending court approval. Cotchett Pitre

recently served as co-lead counsel in In re Vizio, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 16-

md-02693-JLS (C.D. Cal), recovering $17 million and substantial injunctive relief on behalf of the

class, and also helped to recover $29 million as co-lead counsel in a consolidated shareholder and

derivative action In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 17-CV-307054 (Santa Clara

Super. Ct.), arising from alleged undisclosed security breaches that preceded the sale of operating

assets of Yahoo! Inc. to Verizon. Joint Decl., ¶ 13. Cotchett Pitre serves as lead counsel in class

actions before this same Court, including In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-

JD (N.D. Cal.), recovering approximately $80 million in settlements to date, and In re Resistors

Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-03820-JD (N.D. Cal.), with approximately $33 million in

settlements recovered. Joint Decl., ¶ 13.

Cotchett Pitre is also one of the few firms to successfully try complex cases and class

actions. Joint Decl., ¶ 14. In 2011, Cotchett Pitre tried one of the first cases under the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act (PLSRA), obtaining a $64.4 million verdict relating to Homestore.

In Massoyan v. HL Leasing, Inc., Case No. 09-CECG 01839 (Fresno Super. Ct.), Cotchett Pitre

obtained a verdict of over $151 million on behalf of a class of defrauded investors. Cotchett Pitre

also obtained a ground-breaking $1.15 billion judgment against the lead paint industry after a two


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


month trial in Santa Clara Superior Court. See People of the State of California v. Atlantic-

Richfield, et. al., Case No. 1-00-CV-788657 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.). Joint Decl., ¶ 14.

Cotchett Pitre’s team in this matter will be led by Mark Molumphy and Tyson Redenbarger,

both based in the firm’s Burlingame office. Joint Decl., ¶ 15. Mr. Molumphy, a partner and head

of the firm’s securities and data privacy teams, has substantial experience litigating class actions

and other complex actions. Mr. Redenbarger is an associate at Cotchett Pitre and practices in a

wide range of areas including consumer and financial product class actions.

2. The Court Should Grant Co-Lead Counsel Case Management Responsibilities

Plaintiffs’ proposed Co-Lead Counsel requests authority and responsibility over Plaintiffs’

participation in the following matters: (1) the initiation, response, scheduling, briefing, and

argument related to all pleadings or motions; (2) the scope, order, and conduct of all discovery

proceedings; (3) retaining common experts; (4) designating the appearance of Plaintiffs’ counsel at

hearings and conferences; (5) leading common settlement negotiations and entering into

prospective agreements with Robinhood; (6) receiving and distributing among Plaintiffs’ counsel,

as appropriate, notice of all Court orders and notices of pretrial conferences and acting as the

primary contact between the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel; (7) establishing and maintaining a

depository for orders, pleadings, hearing transcripts, and all documents served upon Plaintiffs’

counsel; (8) establishing and maintaining a current Master Service List of counsel of record; and

(9) all other matters concerning the efficient and economical conduct of the consolidated action.

In addition to the above, Plaintiffs’ proposed Co-Lead Counsel is mindful of the Court’s

concerns over duplication of effort, and will be vigilant in their responsibility to coordinate among

other Plaintiffs’ Counsel to ensure the efficient and economical prosecution of this matter. In

furtherance of those responsibilities, Plaintiffs’ proposed Co-Lead Counsel requests authority and

responsibility over the following matters as they relate to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel:

(1) assigning work to other Plaintiffs’ counsel, as may be appropriate and in the Class’s best

interest; (2) implementing time and expense record keeping policies; (3) collecting time and

expense reports from all Plaintiffs’ counsel on a monthly basis; (4) acting as the treasurer for any


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


litigation fund assessments and expenses; and (5) otherwise ensuring that Plaintiffs’ counsel not

perform common benefit work, bill for unnecessary read and review time, or attend hearings or

depositions or other events without Co-Lead Counsel’s authorization. Plaintiffs’ proposed Co-

Lead Counsel believes such authority would enable them to fulfill the most important role of Co-

Lead Counsel – “achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to the parties.”

Manual, § 10.221. Moreover, Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre frequently work on cases that involve

the management and coordination of many law firms and lawyers, and both firms are highly

experienced in those collaborative tasks. Joint Decl., ¶ 7.

C. The Court Should Appoint Liaison Counsel and Establish An Executive Committee To Further Advance The Prosecution Of This Litigation

In addition to appointing Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiffs also respectfully request that the

Court appoint Liaison Counsel and establish an Executive Committee comprised of the following

seven attorneys with the following pending cases: ATTORNEY (AND FIRM) PLAINTIFF(S) CASE NOS. Steve Lopez (Gibbs Law Group -proposed Liaison Counsel)

Metzler 3:20-cv-02286-SK

Matthew Wilson (Meyer Wilson) Beckman 3:20-cv-01626-JDJoseph DePalma (Lite DePalma & Greenberg)

Adame; Prendergast

3:20-cv-01769-JD; 3:20-cv-01877-JD

Matthew Guiney (Wolf Haldenstein) Riggs 3:20-cv-01800-JDGary Lynch (Carlson Lynch) Johann 5:20-cv-01909-LHKJoseph Guglielmo (Scott + Scott) Johann 5:20-cv-01909-LHKMichael Taaffe (Shumaker Loop & Kendrick)

Taaffe 3:20-cv-02669-JSC

Proposed Liaison Counsel and each of the proposed Excutive Committee members has

extensively investigated Robinhood’s alleged misconduct and the legal claims belonging to

Plaintiffs and Class members, and are therefore familiar with the facts of this case. Joint Decl.,

¶ 16; Exs. 3-9 (firm resumes of Liaison Counsel and each member of the proposed Executive

Committee)). These attorneys are also experienced and accomplished class action and securities

litigators. For instance, certain members are court-appointed counsel in other consolidated class

actions, including multi-district litigation, and have in-depth experience working with consumers

and investors to obtain a bevy of notable rulings, settlements, and judgments. Id.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


The proposed Executive Committee Members have achieved a bevy of eight and nine figure

recoveries in some of the largest and highest profile litigations throughout the United States and

are considered thought leaders in the industry, frequently speaking at conferences. Joint Decl.,

¶ 16; Exs. 3-9. Collectively, they will bring a special mix of subject matter expertise, experience,

and resources to this matter, which is not only large by the number of cases already filed, but that

implicates potentially 10 million Class members and a very large amount of potential damages,

with many of the Plaintiffs already claiming five-figure losses each. Id., ¶ 17.

Plaintiffs and the Court will benefit significantly if proposed Co-Lead Counsel, mindful of

their obligations to maintain efficiencies and prevent duplicative efforts, is allowed to draw upon

the individual strengths and collective experience of the proposed Executive Committee members

in the prosecution of this case. For example, proposed Co-Lead Counsel anticipate deploying

proposed Executive Committee members Matthew Wilson and Michael Taaffe to assist with

gathering and analyzing data from the hundreds of investors who have contacted their firms to vet

potential class representatives and then transition to collecting their documents and defending

depositions. Executive Committee member Joseph DePalma will support the research and

preparation of the consolidated complaint and associated law and briefing for related motion

practice. Similarly, Joseph Guglielmo and Gary Lynch have expertise in electronic discovery and

can aid in negotiating an ESI protocol, protective order, and document discovery with Robinhood

and third-parties. And, Matthew Guiney can help investigate and retain experts in securities

compliance and technology on liability and damages issues to prepare damages models given his

firm’s experience in securities cases. Proposed Liaison Counsel, Steve Lopez, will collect and

review monthly time records from all firms to ensure compliance with the timekeeping protocol

and can assist the Court and the Parties with other administrative matters such as keeping up to date

service lists.

Proposed Co-Lead Counsel also expects that document productions, as with most cases of

this size and complexity will reach into the hundreds of thousands or more than a million, and will

require a document coding and review protocol to be deployed with assistance from attorneys at

their firms. The litigation in this case is likely to be hard fought and labor intensive, necessitating


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


a few dozen depositions throughout the United States, significant and complex motion practice,

class certification proceedings, and potential settlement negotiations and appeals. Having the

support of the proposed Executive Committee with offices throughout the United States will ensure

work is done timely by capable and experienced professionals in order to achieve the best results

for the Class.

D. The Court Should Approve the Following Briefing Schedule

Proposed Co-Lead Counsel has conferred with Robinhood’s counsel, and propose the

following briefing schedule, subject to the Court’s availability and approval:

EVENT DEADLINE

File Consolidated Class Action Complaint 30 days after Court enters Order Consolidating Cases

File Motion to Dimiss 45 days after Consolidated Complaint

File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 45 days after Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

File Reply to Motion to Dismiss 30 days after Plaintiffs’ Oppositon to Motion to Dismiss

Initial Case Management Conference June 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (already set)

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court consolidate the

related actions, and request that the Court appoint Kaplan Fox and Cotchett Pitre as Co-Lead

Counsel, appoint Liaison Counsel, and establish an Executive Committee to further promote the

prosecution and coordination of this litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: April 17, 2020 KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP By: /s/ Laurence D. King Laurence D. King Laurence D. King (SBN 206423) Matthew B. George (SBN 239322) 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612

DATED: April 17, 2020 COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP By: /s/ Mark C. Molumphy Mark C. Molumphy Mark C. Molumphy (SBN 168009) Tyson C. Redenbarger (SBN 294424) San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcom Road, Suite 200


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Telephone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Beckman and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel MEYER WILSON CO., LPA David P. Meyer (admitted pro hac vice) Matthew R. Wilson (SBN 290473) Chad Kohler (admitted pro hac vice) Michael J. Boyle, Jr. (SBN 258560) 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Beckman and Proposed Executive Committee Member EREZ LAW Jeffrey Erez (to be admitted pro hac vice) SunTrust International Center 1 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1670 Miami FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 728-3320 Facsimile: (786) 842-7549 Attorney for Plaintiff Beckman DATED: April 17, 2020 LITE DePALMA GREENBERG, LLC By: /s/ Joseph J. DePalma Joseph DePalma Joseph J. DePalma (to be admitted pro hac vice) Steven J. Greenfogel (to be admitted pro hac vice) Jeremy Nash (to be admitted pro hac vice) 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (973) 623-3000 Fax: (973) 623-0858 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 Facsimile: 650-697-0577 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Steinberg and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel DATED: April 17, 2020 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP By: /s/ Steve Lopez Steve Lopez Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658) Andre Mura (SBN 298541) Steve Lopez (SBN 300540) GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Metzler and Proposed Liaison Counsel Scott Silver (pro hac vice to be submitted) SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Metzler DATED: April 17, 2020 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP By: /s/ Matthew M. Guiney Matthew M. Guiney Matthew M. Guiney (to be admitted pro hac vice) Kevin G. Cooper (to be admitted pro hac vice) 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Attorneys for Plaintiffs Adame and Prendergast and Proposed Executive Committee Member THE RESTIS LAW FIRM, P.C. William R. Restis, Esq. (SBN 246823) 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: 619.270.8383 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs Adame and Prendergast DATED: April 17, 2020 CARLSON LYNCH By: /s/ Gary F. Lynch Gary F. Lynch Gary F. Lynch (to be admitted pro hac vice) Jamisen A. Etzel (to be admitted pro hac vice) 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone 412-322-9243 Facsimile 412-231-0246 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Johann and Kuri and Proposed Executive Committee Member CARLSON LYNCH Todd D. Carpenter (CA Bar No. 234464) (Eddie) Jae K. Kim (CA Bar No. 236805) 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-762-1900 Facsimile: 619-756-6991 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Johann and Kuri

Telephone: 212/545-4600 Facsimile: 212/686-0114 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Riggs and Proposed Executive Committee Member WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Rachel R. Byrd Brittany N. DeJong 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Riggs DATED: April 17, 2020 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP By: /s/ Michael S. Taaffe Michael S. Taaffe Michael S. Taaffe (to be admitted pro hac vice) Michael D. Bressan (to be admitted pro hac vice) Jarrod J. Malone (to be admitted pro hac vice) 240 South Pineapple Ave., 10th Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Telephone: (941) 366-6660 Facsimile: (941) 366-3999 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Taaffe, Ward, and Proposed Executive Committee Member DATED: April 17, 2020 MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC By: /s/ Thomas D. Mauriello Thomas D. Mauriello Thomas D. Mauriello (SBN 144811) 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 940-1606


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DATED: April 17, 2020 SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP By: /s/ Joseph P. Guglielmo Joseph P. Guglielmo Joseph P. Guglielmo (admitted pro hac vice) The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave., 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212-223-6444 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Johann and Kuri and Proposed Executive Committee Member SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP Erin Green Comite (admitted pro hac vice) 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone 860-537-5537 Facsimile: 860-537-4432 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Johann and Kuri

Facsimile: (949) 606-9690 [email protected] GRABAR LAW OFFICE Joshua H. Grabar (to be admitted pro hac vice) 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-507-6085 Facsimile: 267-507-6048 [email protected] RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky (to be admitted pro hac vice) Timothy J. MacFall (to be admitted pro hac vice) 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 [email protected] [email protected] THE GUILIANO LAW GROUP, P.C. Nicholas J. Guiliano (to be admitted pro hac vice) 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 413-8223 Facsimile: (215) 660-5490 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Mengia Xia DATED: April 17, 2020 ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP By: /s/ Daniel L. Germain Daniel L. Germain Daniel L. Germain (SBN 143334) 16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436-2152 Telephone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 [email protected] THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. James M. Ficaro (pro hac vice to be requested) 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 225-2677 Facsimile: (610) 408-8062 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Ferris


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 18 - Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD

MOTION AND MPA FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, Laurence D. King hereby attests that counsel for all

parties listed above consented to the filing of this document in Case No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD (N.D.

Cal.).

DATED: April 17, 2020 KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

By: /s/ Laurence D. King Laurence D. King

Counsel for Plaintiff Beckman, and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel for the Putative Class


case 3:20-cv-01626-jd document 38 filed 04/17/20 page 1 of …...2020/07/15 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...

Documents