Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
`Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Telephone: (213) 785-2610
`Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
`Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
`
`Counsel for Movant and [Proposed]
`Lead Counsel for the Class
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`NICK PATTERSON, Individually and on
`Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`TERRAFORM LABS, PTE. LTD., JUMP
`CRYPTO, JUMP TRADING LLC,
`REPUBLIC CAPITAL, REPUBLIC
`MAXIMAL LLC, TRIBE CAPITAL,
`DEFINANCE CAPITAL/DEFINANCE
`TECHNOLOGIES OY, GSR/GSR
`MARKETS LIMITED, THREE ARROWS
`CAPITAL PTE. LTD., NICHOLAS
`PLATIAS, and DO KWON,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION OF MOVANT MICHAEL
`TOBIAS FOR APPOINTMENT AS
`LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL
`OF COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`Judge: Beth Labson Freeman
`Hearing: December 15, 2022
`Time: 9:00 AM
`
`Ctrm: 3 – 5th Floor (San Jose)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`1
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 15, 2022 at 9:00 AM before the Honorable
`
`Beth Labson Freeman in the San Jose Courthouse, 3 – 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose,
`
`CA 95113, Movant Michael Tobias (“Movant”) will and does move this Court for an order
`
`granting the Motion: (a) appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff; and (b) approving Movant’s
`
`selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. This Motion is brought pursuant to
`
`Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the
`
`Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on the grounds that: (1) Movant should
`
`be appointed Lead Plaintiff for the class of purchasers of Terra Tokens including between May
`
`20, 2021 and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”), as Movant has timely made this
`
`Motion and is the “most adequate plaintiff” and otherwise satisfies the pertinent requirements of
`
`Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) that Movant’s selection of The Rosen
`
`Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel should be approved as the firm is well-qualified with extensive
`
`experience in cases of this type.
`
`In support of this Motion, Movant files herewith a memorandum of points and authorities,
`
`the Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen with exhibits, the certification of Laurence M. Rosen
`
`pursuant to LR 3-7(d), a certification pursuant to LR 3-15, and a proposed order.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Movant Michael Tobias (“Movant”), respectfully submits this memorandum in support of
`
`his motion for an Order, pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Act and Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of
`
`the Exchange Act as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the
`
`“PSLRA”):
`
`(1)
`
`appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff for all persons other than those excluded1 who
`
`were purchasers of Terra Tokens between May 20, 2021 and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the “Class
`
`
`1 Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) Defendants’ affiliates, agents, employees,
`officers, and directors; (c) Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (d) the judge assigned
`to this matter, the judge’s staff, and any member of the judge’s immediate family. Movant
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`2
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities
`
`laws, and non-securities violations of provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
`
`Organizations Act (“RICO”) and California law (the “Class”); and
`
`(2)
`
`appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (“Rosen Law”) as Lead Counsel for the
`
`Class.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Counsel.
`
`Whether the Court should appoint Movant as the Lead Plaintiff; and
`
`Whether the Court should approve Movant’s selection of Rosen Law as Lead
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`This action was commenced on June 17, 2022 in the United States District Court Northern
`
`District of California against Defendants for claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the
`
`Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and non-securities violations of provisions of
`
`the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and California law (the
`
`“Class”). On June 20, 2022, a PSLRA early notice advising potential Class members of, among
`
`other things, the claims alleged in the action and the 60-day deadline for Class members to move
`
`to be appointed as lead plaintiff was issued. A copy of the early notice is attached as Exhibit 1 to
`
`the Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen filed herewith (“Rosen Decl.” or “Rosen Declaration”).
`
`TerraForm Labs Pte. Ltd. (“TFL”) operates the Terra blockchain and its related protocol
`
`which hosts, supports, and funds decentralized financial applications and products known
`
`collectively as the Terra ecosystem. TFL’s primary focus is developing, marketing, and selling a
`
`suite of digital assets and financial products within the Terra ecosystem, including the native and
`
`governance tokens within the Terra ecosystem, so-called “stablecoins,” a bevy of financial
`
`products such as “mirrored assets,” bonded assets, liquidity pool tokens, along with various
`
`protocols (e.g., Anchor, Mirror, etc.) to support and facilitate their sale. These digital assets are
`
`collectively referred to as the “Terra Tokens” and are worth tens of billions of dollars in total
`
`
`reserves the right to modify, change, or expand the various class definitions set forth above, based
`on discovery and further investigation.
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`3
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`market cap. All of TFL’s decentralized applications are designed to manufacture a reason to use
`
`the Terra Tokens since there is no purpose for these digital assets other than as investments.
`
`TFL repeatedly touted the stability of UST as an “algorithmic” stablecoin that is paired to
`
`the Terra ecosystem’s native token LUNA and the sustainability of the Anchor Protocol—a type
`
`of high-yield savings account whereby investors can “stake” or deposit UST with TFL in
`
`exchange for a guaranteed 20% APY interest rate. As a part of this promotional campaign, TFL
`
`formed the Luna Foundation Guard—a group six venture capital groups that promised to support
`
`and fund the Terra ecosystem and to “defend the peg” in the event that high volatility caused the
`
`UST/LUNA pair to become untethered. The Luna Foundation Guard and its members acted on
`
`behalf of TFL to promote the stability of UST and mislead investors into believing that (1) the
`
`Luna Foundation Guard’s reserve pool would be sufficient to defend the peg against a proverbial
`
`run on the bank by UST/LUNA investors, and (2) that the Luna Foundation Guard would be able
`
`to maintain interest payments from the Anchor Protocol through a well-capitalized “Anchor Yield
`
`Reserve” fund.
`
`Then, between May 6, 2022 and May 9, 2022, structural infirmities specific to the Terra
`
`ecosystem exposed a crack in UST's ability to maintain its peg to $1. The truth regarding the
`
`stability and sustainability of the UST/LUNA pair and the Anchor Protocol could not be hidden
`
`any longer from investors, and within a week, the price of UST and LUNA collapsed by
`
`approximately 91% and 99.7%, respectively.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
`
`market value of Terra Tokens, Movant and other Class members have suffered significant losses
`
`and damages.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. MOVANT SHOULD BE APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF
`
`The PSLRA directs courts to consider any motion to serve as lead plaintiff filed by class
`
`members in response to a published notice of the class action by the later of (i) 90 days after the
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`4
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`date of publication of the notice; or (ii) as soon as practicable after the Court decides any pending
`
`motion to consolidate. 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B).
`
`The PSLRA provides a “rebuttable presumption” that the most “adequate plaintiff” to
`
`serve as Lead Plaintiff is the “person or group of persons” that:
`
`(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice …;
`
`(bb) in the determination of the Court, has the largest financial interest in the relief
`
`sought by the class; and
`
`(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d
`
`726, 729-30 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`As set forth below, Movant satisfies the above criteria, having the largest financial interest
`
`of any movant in this litigation, and is therefore the most adequate plaintiff and should be
`
`appointed as Lead Plaintiff.
`
`1. Movant Is Willing to Serve as Class Representative
`
`Movant timely filed the instant motion in response to a PSLRA early notice, and filed
`
`herewith a PSLRA certification attesting that Movant is willing to serve as a representative of the
`
`Class and is willing to provide testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary. See Rosen Decl.,
`
`Ex. 2. Accordingly, Movant satisfies the first requirement to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class.
`
`2. Movant Has the Largest Financial Interest in the Action
`
`The PSLRA requires a court to adopt a rebuttable presumption that “the most adequate
`
`plaintiff … is the person or group … that … has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
`
`by the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); Cavanaugh, 306
`
`F.3d at 730. While the PSLRA does not specify precisely how to calculate the “largest financial
`
`interest,” the movant’s approximate losses in the subject securities is the best measure.
`
`Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344 at * 4 (citing cases).
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`5
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`Movant invested $452,991 in UST on 452,991 UST tokens, which he continues to hold,
`
`and lost approximately $441,062 under the Exchange Act in connection with his transactions of
`
`Terra Tokens, specifically UST which were staked utilizing the Anchor Protocol, during the Class
`
`Period. See Rosen Decl., Ex. 3 (Movant’s Loss Chart). Accordingly, Movant satisfies the largest
`
`financial interest requirement to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the Class.
`
`3. Movant Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure
`
`The PSLRA further provides that, in addition to possessing the largest financial interest
`
`in the outcome of the litigation, the Lead Plaintiffs must “otherwise satsif[y] the requirements of
`
`Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc); 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) provides that a party may
`
`serve as a class representative if the following four requirements are satisfied:
`
`(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2)
`there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or
`defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
`of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
`protect the interests of the class.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
`
`In making its determination that a movant satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, the Court
`
`need not raise its inquiry to the level required in ruling on a motion for class certification – a
`
`prima facie showing that Movant satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 is sufficient. Cavanaugh,
`
`306 F.3d at 730-31. At the lead plaintiff stage, “[t]he typicality and adequacy requirements of
`
`Rule 23 are the main focus…” and “[e]xamination of the remaining requirements [of Rule 23] are
`
`deferred until the lead plaintiff moves for class certification.” Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344, at
`
`* 4 (citing Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730).
`
`Movant fulfills all of the pertinent requirements of Rule 23. Movant shares substantially
`
`similar questions of law and fact with the members of the Class, and Movant’s claims are typical
`
`of the members of the Class. Movant and all members of the Class allege that Defendants violated
`
`the federal securities laws by, among other things, selling unregistered securities and publicly
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`6
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`disseminating a false and misleading information. Movant, as did all of the members of the Class,
`
`purchased unregistered Terra Tokens at prices artificially inflated due to Defendants’
`
`misrepresentations and omissions, and was damaged thereby. These shared claims also satisfy the
`
`requirement that the claims of the representative parties be typical of the claims of the Class.
`
`Thus, the close alignment of interests between Movant and other Class members, and
`
`Movant’s desire to prosecute this action on behalf of the Class, provides ample reason to appoint
`
`Movant as Lead Plaintiff.
`
`4. Movant Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class
`and Is Not Subject to Unique Defenses
`
`The presumption in favor of appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff may be rebutted only
`
`upon proof “by a purported member of the plaintiffs’ class” that the presumptively most adequate
`
`plaintiff:
`
`(aa) will not fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class; or
`
`(bb) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of
`
`adequately representing the class.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).
`
`Movant is not aware of any unique defenses that Defendants could raise against him that
`
`would render him inadequate to represent the Class. Movant has researched and retained
`
`competent and experienced counsel concerning this case, and made this motion to be appointed
`
`as Lead Plaintiff. Movant is not aware that any conflict exists between their claims and those
`
`asserted on behalf of the Class. Movant also sustained substantial financial losses from
`
`investments in Terra Tokens and is therefore, extremely motivated to pursue claims in this action.
`
`Movant’s ability and desire to fairly and adequately represent the Class has been discussed
`
`above. Accordingly, the Court should appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff for the Class.
`
`B. MOVANT’S SELECTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED
`
`The PSLRA vests authority in the Lead Plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject
`
`to the approval of the Court. 15 U.S.C. § 77z- 1(a)(3)(B)(v); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The
`
`Court should only interfere with the Lead Plaintiff’s selection when necessary “to protect the
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`7
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`interests of
`
`the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
`
`4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).
`
`Movant has selected Rosen Law as Lead Counsel. The firm has been actively researching
`
`the Class’ and the Movant’s claims—reviewing publicly available financial and other documents
`
`and gathering information in support of the claims against the Defendants. Furthermore, the firm
`
`is experienced in the area of securities litigation and class actions, having been appointed as lead
`
`counsel in securities class actions in this District and in numerous courts throughout the nation.
`
`Rosen Law has prosecuted securities fraud class actions and other complex litigation and has
`
`obtained substantial recoveries on behalf of investors. The resume of the firm is attached as
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Rosen Declaration.
`
`As a result of the firm’s experiences in litigation involving issues similar to those raised
`
`in this action, Movant’s counsel has the skill and knowledge that will enable it to prosecute this
`
`action effectively and expeditiously. Thus, the Court may be assured that by approving Movant’s
`
`selection of counsel, the members of the Class will receive the best legal representation available.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order: (1)
`
`appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff of the Class; (2) approving Rosen Law as Lead Counsel; and
`
`(3) granting such other relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 19, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Laurence M. Rosen
`Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 785-2610
`Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
`Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
`
`Counsel for Movant and [Proposed]
`Lead Counsel for the Class
`
`8
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-03600-BLF Document 19 Filed 08/19/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I, Laurence M. Rosen, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
`
`I am the managing attorney of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., with offices at 355 South Grand
`
`Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of eighteen.
`
`On August 19, 2022 I electronically filed the following NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`MOTION OF MOVANT MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD
`
`PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
`
`system which sent notification of such filing to counsel of record.
`
`
`
`I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing in true and correct.
`
`Executed on August 19, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
`Laurence M. Rosen
`
`NOT. OF MTN. AND MTN. OF MICHAEL TOBIAS FOR APPT. AS LEAD PLAINTIFF &
`APPROVAL OF COUNSEL; MEMO OF P&A IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`5:22-cv-03600-BLF
`
`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
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`