Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
` & DOWD LLP
`JASON A. FORGE (181542)
`MICHAEL ALBERT (301120)
`J. MARCO JANOSKI GRAY (306547)
`TING H. LIU (307747)
`NATALIE F. LAKOSIL (322836)
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619/231-1058
`619/231-7423 (fax)
`jforge@rgrdlaw.com
`malbert@rgrdlaw.com
`mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
`tliu@rgrdlaw.com
`nlakosil@rgrdlaw.com
`Lead Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`In re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES
`)
`Master File No. 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`LITIGATION
`)
`)
`CLASS ACTION
`
`)
`)
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`)
`CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS
`)
`REPRESENTATIVE, AND APPOINT
`)
`CLASS COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF
`)
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`)
`THEREOF
`DATE:
`TIME:
`CTRM:
`JUDGE:
`
`
` November 4, 2022
` 9:00 a.m.
` 5, 2nd Floor
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`
`
`
`
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`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 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 
`Statement of Facts Common to the Class ............................................................................2 
`The Proposed Class Representative .....................................................................................4 
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Standards for Class Certification Under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ..................................................................................................4 
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Standards for Class Certification Under
`A. 
`Rule 23(a).................................................................................................................6 
`1. 
`The Class Is so Numerous that Joinder Is Impracticable .............................6 
`2. 
`Every Question of Law and Fact Is Common to Each Class
`Member ........................................................................................................6 
`Rhode Island’s Claims Are Typical of Those of Each Class
`Member ........................................................................................................7 
`Rhode Island Will Fairly and Adequately Protect the Interests of
`the Class .......................................................................................................8 
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Standard for Class Certification Under
`Rule 23(b) ................................................................................................................9 
`1. 
`Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate .....................................9 
`2. 
`The Class Is Entitled to a Presumption of Reliance Under Affiliated
`Ute ..............................................................................................................11 
`Damages Will Be Calculated in the Same Manner for All Class
`Members ....................................................................................................12 
`Superiority Is Established ..........................................................................14 
`4. 
`Robbins Geller Should Be Appointed Class Counsel ............................................15 
`C. 
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................15 
`
`B. 
`
`3. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF- 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States,
`406 U.S. 128 (1972) .....................................................................................................10, 11, 12
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Andrews Farms v. Calcot, Ltd.,
`2010 WL 3341963 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) ...........................................................................9
`
`Basic Inc. v. Levinson,
`485 U.S. 224 (1988) .................................................................................................................14
`
`Binder v. Gillespie,
`184 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................11
`
`Blackie v. Barrack,
`524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) .............................................................................................12, 14
`
`Blaich v. Emp. Sols., Inc.,
`1997 WL 842417 (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 1997) ...............................................................................8
`
`Blue Book Servs., Inc. v. Amerihua Produce, Inc.,
`337 F. Supp. 3d 802 (N.D. Ill. 2018) .......................................................................................13
`
`Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds v. Amgen Inc.,
`660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011), aff’d, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) .......................................................5
`
`Eggleston v. Chi. Journeymen Plumbers’ Loc. Union No. 130, U.A.,
`657 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
`417 U.S. 156 (1974) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Epstein v. MCA, Inc.,
`50 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996)..................................................14
`
`Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.,
`563 U.S. 804 (2011) .................................................................................................................10
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF- 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Freedman v. La.-Pac. Corp.,
`922 F. Supp. 377 (D. Or. 1996) ...............................................................................................14
`
`Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC,
`318 F.R.D. 614 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Gluck v. CellStar Corp.,
`976 F. Supp. 542 (N.D. Tex. 1997) ...........................................................................................8
`
`Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 258 (2014) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc.,
`274 F.R.D. 259 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................................................14
`
`Howard v. Liquidity Servs. Inc.,
`322 F.R.D. 103 (D.D.C. 2017) ...................................................................................................5
`
`In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`1 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2021), cert denied,
`__ U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 1227 (2022) ..............................................................................3, 4, 7, 11
`
`In re Celera Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`2014 WL 722408 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) .............................................................................8
`
`In re Cooper Cos. Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`254 F.R.D. 628 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .......................................................................................10, 14
`
`In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`295 F.R.D. 240 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................5, 12, 13
`
`In re Mattel, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2021 WL 4704578 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) ..............................................................................5
`
`In re Montage Tech. Grp. Ltd. Sec. Litig.,
`2016 WL 1598666 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) .............................................................10, 11, 12
`
`Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme v. First Solar Inc.,
`881 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................13
`
`N.Y.C. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Berry,
`616 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Parsons v. Ryan,
`754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Petrie v. Elec. Game Card, Inc.,
`308 F.R.D. 336 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................................14
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,
`472 U.S. 797 (1985) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Questrom v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`84 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2000),
`aff’d, 2 F. Appx. 81 (2d Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Rodriguez v. Hayes,
`591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of S.F.,
`749 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................12
`
`W. Va. Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`325 F.R.D. 280 (D. Minn. 2018)..............................................................................................11
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`15 U.S.C.
`§78j(b) ..........................................................................................................................10, 11, 12
`§78t(a) ........................................................................................................................................4
`§78u-4(a)(3)(B) ..........................................................................................................................3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 23 .............................................................................................................................4, 5, 14
`Rule 23(a)......................................................................................................................... passim
`Rule 23(a)(1) ..............................................................................................................................6
`Rule 23(a)(2) ..............................................................................................................................6
`Rule 23(a)(3) ..............................................................................................................................7
`Rule 23(a)(4) ..........................................................................................................................8, 9
`Rule 23(b) ..............................................................................................................................5, 9
`Rule 23(b)(3) .................................................................................................................... passim
`Rule 23(g) ............................................................................................................................1, 15
`Rule 23(g)(1) ............................................................................................................................15
`Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i) ..................................................................................................................15
`Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii) .................................................................................................................15
`Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iii) ................................................................................................................15
`Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iv) ................................................................................................................15
`
`17 C.F.R.
`§240.10b-5 .........................................................................................................................10, 12
`§240.10b-5(a) .......................................................................................................................4, 10
`§240.10b-5(b).....................................................................................................................3, 4, 7
`§240.10b-5(c) .............................................................................................................................4
`
`LEGISTATIVE HISTORY
`S. Rep. No. 104-98 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679 .............................................8
`
`SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
`
`7 William Rubenstein, Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg,
`Newberg on Class Actions (4th ed. 2002)
`§22:1 ..........................................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 4, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the
`Honorable Jeffrey S. White, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, United States District Court, Oakland
`Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, Lead Plaintiff State of Rhode Island,
`Office of the Rhode Island Treasurer on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode
`Island (“Lead Plaintiff” or “Rhode Island”) will and hereby does move to certify a class under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), appoint Rhode Island as Class Representative, and
`appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Lead Counsel” or “Robbins Geller”) as Class
`Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES (CIVIL L.R. 7-4(A)(3))
`1.
`Whether to certify the proposed Class (as defined below) pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);
`2.
`Whether to appoint Rhode Island as Class Representative; and
`3.
`Whether to appoint Robbins Geller as Class Counsel.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Introduction
`
`I.
`
`This is a prototypical class action case: thousands of individuals and entities with the same
`claims that will yield the same answers based on the same evidence – all related to millions of shares
`of a company purchased at an allegedly inflated price on the largest and most developed securities
`market in the world. Among the prospective class members, there is literally no variation regarding
`any factual or legal issues here. Were they to try their cases separately, it would be the identical trial
`over and over again – thousands of times. There is no good-faith basis to dispute a single
`class-certification factor here, so the only sensible way for this litigation to proceed is as a class
`action. But defendants have already demonstrated their indifference to the facts and the law when it
`comes to avoiding the merits of this case. Now their hope is that an unjustifiable denial of class
`certification would deny Rhode Island the opportunity to prove its claims. It would not. Rhode
`Island will proceed with this litigation irrespective of any initial decision on class certification.
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`With all the relevant factors overwhelmingly favoring class certification, Rhode Island
`respectfully requests that the Court certify this case as a class action, and appoint it and Robbins
`Geller to serve as Class Representative and Class Counsel, respectively, for a Class consisting of:
`All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Class A and/or Class C
`stock of Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet” or the “Company”) during the period from April
`23, 2018 through October 7, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Excluded from the
`Class are defendants and their families, the officers, directors, and affiliates of
`defendants, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal
`representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have
`or had a controlling interest.
`Statement of Facts Common to the Class
`
`II.
`
`In March 2018 – at a time when technology companies were facing unprecedented public and
`regulatory scrutiny over data privacy – Google (collectively, Google, Inc. and Google LLC) learned
`that a software bug had allowed hundreds of third-party developers access to private user-profile
`data in the Google+ social-networking platform. Google had failed to detect this bug for over three
`years – and because it only maintained two weeks of activity logs, it could not identify affected users
`and had no way to determine the extent of any third-party exploitation. Defendants’ belated
`discovery and investigation of this bug also revealed other security vulnerabilities in the Google+
`platform, including the inevitability of more bugs that it simply could not contain. In or around
`April 2018, Google’s legal and policy staff prepared a memo that outlined the Company’s internal
`debate as to whether it should disclose the existence of these concealed and uncontrollable data
`privacy and security issues, and which also warned that disclosure of these issues would: (1) likely
`trigger “‘immediate regulatory interest’” (¶38)1; (2) result in defendants “‘coming into the spotlight
`alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the
`Cambridge Analytica scandal’” (id.)2; and (3) “‘almost guarantee[] Sundar [Pichai] [would] testify
`before Congress’” (id.).
`
`
`1
`All “¶_” or “¶¶_” references are to the Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of the
`Federal Securities Laws (ECF 62) (“Amended Complaint”), and internal citations are omitted
`throughout, unless otherwise stated.
`2
`In April 2018, congressional hearings were underway into the “‘future of data privacy and
`social media’” following the revelation of Facebook’s leak of user information to third-party
`research firm Cambridge Analytica. While defendants evaded the hearings to distance themselves
`from the scandal, Cambridge Analytica was able to harvest private user information from Facebook
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`- 2 -
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`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 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`Despite defendants’ indisputable awareness of the data vulnerabilities plaguing the Google+
`platform by early April 2018, defendants chose to conceal these issues and to omit any reference to
`them in the Company’s public statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
`filings for two consecutive quarters. Six months later, a Wall Street Journal exposé aptly titled
`“Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to the Public,” revealed the details
`of defendants’ scheme to the public. The public response to this revelation was swift and significant.
`Both Republican and Democratic Senators condemned defendants’ concealment and called for
`further investigations into the Company, stating that “[t]he awareness and approval by Google
`management to not disclose represents a culture of concealment and opacity set from the top of the
`company.” ¶60. Media reports were similarly critical, noting that “Google’s business model is
`based on trust, and hiding a potentially dangerous breach for six months is not the way to keep it.”
`¶66. Google’s security problems extended well beyond Google+ and required changes to other
`products. ¶76. As a result of defendants’ misleadingly incomplete statements and omissions to the
`public, including resulting declines in Alphabet’s share price (including in October 2018 and on
`April 30, 2019), class members have suffered damages.
`On January 25, 2019, the Court appointed Rhode Island as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the
`Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B). ECF 44.
`Rhode Island filed the operative Amended Complaint on April 26, 2019. On February 5, 2020, the
`Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff
`appealed.
`On June 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part
`and affirmed in part the Court’s motion to dismiss order. In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig., 1 F.4th
`687, 693 (9th Cir. 2021), cert denied, __ U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 1227 (2022). Specifically, the Ninth
`Circuit reversed the Court’s dismissal of Lead Plaintiff’s Rule 10b-5(b) claims with respect to
`statements made in Alphabet’s April 2018 and July 2018 Forms 10-Q, directly incorporating risk
`
`
`using the exact same type of faulty mechanism that plagued Google+: an application programming
`interface that allowed third-party developers access to private information from both users and those
`users’ connections.
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`factor statements regarding data privacy concerns from Alphabet’s 2017 Form 10-K, observing that
`“the Privacy Bug Memo was not limited to discussing the discovery of the software glitch that had
`been remediated because it highlighted additional security vulnerabilities that were so significant
`that they allegedly led to Google’s decision to shut down the Google+ consumer platform,” and
`“conclud[ing] that the complaint adequately alleges that these two statements omitted material facts
`necessary to make the statements not misleading.” Id. at 702, 704. Although the Ninth Circuit
`affirmed the dismissal of Rule 10b-5(b) statement liability for the ten remaining statements, it held
`that “these statements are relevant and were made while Google and Alphabet allegedly chose a
`strategy of concealment over disclosure.” Id. at 708. Last, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s
`dismissal of Lead Plaintiff’s Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) scheme liability claims, reinstating them, as well
`as the corresponding §20(a) claims. Lead Plaintiff is proceeding on all these claims on remand.
`III. The Proposed Class Representative
`
`Lead Plaintiff is a public pension fund that provides retirement, disability, and survivor
`benefits to the State of Rhode Island’s employees, public school teachers, judges, state police,
`participating municipal police and fire employees, and general employees of participating
`municipalities. See Declaration of Jason A. Forge in Support of Motion to Certify Class, Appoint
`Class Representative, and Appoint Class Counsel (“Forge Decl.”), Ex. A, ¶2, filed concurrently
`herewith. Rhode Island manages investments of over $10 billion. Id. Rhode Island acquired 36,896
`shares of Alphabet Class A and Class C stock during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices
`and suffered substantial losses after defendants’ scheme was revealed. See ECF 19-4 at 2. Rhode
`Island has, and will continue to, actively oversee and participate in the prosecution of this action.
`See Forge Decl., Ex. A, ¶5.
`IV.
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Standards for Class Certification Under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
`
`“The Supreme Court as well as every circuit that has confronted the issue of class
`certification in the area of securities litigation has recognized its utility and necessity in a society
`where geographically dispersed shareholders cannot individually challenge violations by powerful
`and wealthy corporate defendants because of their small holdings and the unyielding costs of
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`securities litigation.” 7 William Rubenstein, Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class
`Actions §22:1 (4th ed. 2002) (citing, among others, Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797
`(1985)). “The Supreme Court has explained that class actions are necessary to enable litigation
`through economies of scale, as ‘most of the plaintiffs would have no realistic day in court if a class
`action were not available.’” Howard v. Liquidity Servs. Inc., 322 F.R.D. 103, 141 (D.D.C. 2017)
`(quoting Phillips Petroleum, 472 U.S. at 809). Accordingly, “‘the law in the Ninth Circuit is very
`well established that the requirements of Rule 23 should be liberally construed in favor of class
`action cases brought under the federal securities laws.’” In re Mattel, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2021 WL
`4704578, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021).
`To certify a class, the movant must demonstrate that the requirements of Rule 23 are met.
`See Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds v. Amgen Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2011), aff’d, 568
`U.S. 455 (2013). “‘[T]he question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of
`action or will prevail on the merits, but rather, whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.’” In re
`Diamond Foods, Inc., Sec. Litig., 295 F.R.D. 240, 245 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle &
`Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974)). Merits questions are relevant “‘only to the extent . . . that
`they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are
`satisfied.’” Id. (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013)).
`Rule 23(a) sets four threshold requirements for class certification: (1) the class must be so
`numerous that joinder of all members is impractical (“numerosity”); (2) there must be questions of
`law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) the claims of the representative parties must
`be typical of the claims of the class (“typicality”); and (4) the representative parties must fairly and
`adequately protect the interests of the class (“adequacy”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
`Once a putative class representative has shown that its proposed class meets these four
`requirements, the court then must determine whether the action can be maintained under one of the
`three subsections of Rule 23(b). Here, Lead Plaintiff seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
`because “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
`affecting only individual members” and “a class action is superior to other available methods for
`fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
`NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE &
`APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL; MEMO OF P’S & A’S IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4:18-cv-06245-JSW
`4890-0552-7588.v1
`
`- 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06245-JSW Document 102 Filed 06/21/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Standards for Class Certification
`Under Rule 23(a)
`1.
`
`The Class Is so Numerous that Joinder Is Impracticable
`
`Rule 23(a)(1) permits class certification if “the class is so numerous that joinder of all
`members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Although “‘[t]here is no absolute minimum
`number of plaintiffs necessary to demonstrate that the putative class is so numerous so as to render
`joinder impracticable[,] . . . [j]oinder has been deemed impracticable in cases involving as few as 25
`class members.’” Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC, 318 F.R.D. 614, 621 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “‘[A]
`survey of representative cases indicates that, generally speaking, classes consisting of more than 75
`members usually satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).’” Id.
`Throughout the Class Period, Alphabet had approximately 648 million shares outstanding on
`any trading day. See Forge Decl., Ex. B (Expert Report of Joseph R. Mason, Ph.D.), ¶33(c). An
`average of approximately 3.3 million shares of Alphabet stock were exchanged on a daily basis
`during the Class Period. Id., ¶33(a). Accordingly, the numerosity prong is satisfied.
`2.
`Every Question of Law and Fact Is Common to Each Class
`Member
`
`Rule 23(a)(2) requires a showing that “questions of law or fact” are common to the proposed
`class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “Plaintiffs need not show . . . that ‘every question in the case, or
`even a preponderance of questions, is capable of class wide resolution. So long as there is “even a
`single common question,” a would-be class can satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule
`23(a)(2).’” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 675 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of
`S.F., 749 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] common contention need not be one that ‘will be
`answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.’ Instead, it only ‘must be of such a nature that it is
`capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve
`an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’”) (emphasis in
`original) (quoting Amgen, 568 U.S. at 459; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350
`(2011)).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`2