Nelson v. Maravai Lifesciences Holdings, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
In a Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) securities class action, the court resolved competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court granted the unopposed motion of Erwin Ortiz to be appointed lead plaintiff and his counsel to be appointed lead class counsel, while denying the competing motions of other would-be plaintiffs who had withdrawn or conceded they did not have the largest financial interest.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Erwin Ortiz's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff“Erwin Ortiz’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff is GRANTED.” | agree with court The PSLRA presumes the lead plaintiff is the party with the largest financial interest in the relief sought. The record indicates that all other movants either withdrew or acknowledged they did not possess the largest financial interest, leaving Ortiz as the only remaining candidate. Ortiz made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. Therefore, the appointment follows directly from the statutory presumption and the admissions of the other parties. |
Appointing Jacob Allen Walker as lead class counsel“Ortiz’s counsel, Jacob Allen Walker, is APPOINTED lead class counsel.” | agree with court Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), the most adequate plaintiff selects and retains counsel, subject to court approval. Since Ortiz was appointed lead plaintiff, his choice of counsel is presumptively valid unless there is a conflict of interest or other disqualifying factor, none of which are mentioned in the order. The appointment is a standard procedural consequence of the lead plaintiff appointment. |
Denying the competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff (ECF 13 & 15)“The June 6, 2025 hearing on this matter is VACATED.” | agree with court The order title indicates the competing motions are denied. The reasoning is that the movants for those motions (Nelson, Thakrar, Bouscher) withdrew or conceded they did not have the largest financial interest. Denying a motion where the movant has conceded the statutory requirement is not met is procedurally correct. The vacatur of the hearing is a logical administrative step since the matter is resolved. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the PSLRA's lead plaintiff presumption. It relies on the statutory text and a relevant Ninth Circuit case to establish the standard. The factual basis for the decision is clear: the other movants conceded they did not have the largest financial interest, and the remaining movant (Ortiz) made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. The appointment of counsel follows directly from the lead plaintiff's statutory right to select counsel. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural stage.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Shaji NELSON, individually and on Case No.: 25-cv-0499-AGS-AHG 4 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING ORTIZ’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 5 Plaintiff, APPOINT COUNSEL AND LEAD 6 v. PLAINTIFF (ECF 14) AND DENYING COMPETING MOTIONS (ECF 13 & 7 MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES 15) 8 HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 In this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act case, several individuals have moved 12 for appointment as lead plaintiff along with appointment of lead counsel of their choosing. 13 (See ECF 13, 14, 15.) Under the statute, the lead role presumptively goes to the would-be 14 plaintiff with “the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.” In re 15 Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)). 16 Here, after each movant set out their financial stake, one of the would-be plaintiffs 17 withdrew his request to be appointed and all the others acknowledge that they do not have 18 the largest financial interest, leaving only would-be plaintiff Erwin Ortiz. (See ECF 19, at 2 19 (“Nelson does not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class as 20 required by the PSLRA. As such, Nelson hereby withdraws his Motion.”); ECF 18, at 2 21 (Thakrar: “it appears that Movant does not have the largest financial interest in this 22 litigation”); ECF 17, at 2 (Bouscher: “Based upon a review of the competing motions and 23 supporting papers provided by the other movants seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, it 24 appears that, while Movant is well-qualified to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action, he 25 does not possess the ‘largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class’ as required 26 by the PSLRA.”).) Based on Ortiz’s unopposed filing, he has both the largest financial 27 stake and makes a prima facie showing that his claims are typical of the class and that he 28 would be an adequate representative. As such: 1 1. Erwin Ortiz’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff is GRANTED. The Clerk 2 must update the docket to reflect Ortiz as lead plaintiff. 3 2. Ortiz’s counsel, Jacob Allen Walker, is APPOINTED lead class counsel. See 15 4 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the 5 approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.”’). The Clerk 6 must update the docket to reflect Walker’s appointment, as well. 7 3. The June 6, 2025 hearing on this matter is VACATED. 8 || Dated: May 30, 2025 10 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28