Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`
`Vincent Cheng (SBN 230827)
`Block & Leviton LLP
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(510) 543-0489 phone
`vincent@blockleviton.com
`
`
`
`Jeffrey C. Block, pro hac vice
`Jacob A. Walker (SBN 271217)
`Block & Leviton LLP
`260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 398-5600 phone
`jeff@blockleviton.com
`jake@blockleviton.com
`
`Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff
`Rick Keiner and the Class
`
`
`
`
`In re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation
`
`This document relates to:
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`Lead Case No.: 4:19-cv-02690-HSG
`
`Lead Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion,
`Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
`Approval of Settlement, and Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities in Support
`Thereof
`
`
`Oct. 13, 2022
`Date:
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor
`
`Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION ................................................................ 1
`
`Table of Contents
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .............................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Statement of Alleged Facts .................................................................................................. 2
`
`B. Procedural History ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`C. Settlement Negotiations ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ..................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Settlement Consideration ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Settlement Class and Claims ............................................................................................... 6
`
`C. Settlement Administration ................................................................................................... 7
`
`D. Attorneys’ Fees and Service Award .................................................................................... 8
`
`E. Cy Pres Awardee ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`F. Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Notice ......................................................................... 9
`
`G. Past Distributions ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`A. The Settlement Agreement Is the Result of Arm’s Length Negotiations Conducted in
`Good Faith Between Experienced Counsel and Mediated by a Professional Mediator. ........... 11
`
`B. The Settlement Agreement Has No Obvious Deficiencies and Does Not Grant
`Preferential Treatment to Lead Plaintiff or Any Segment of the Class. .................................... 12
`
`C. The Settlement Agreement Falls Within the Range of Reasonableness and Warrants
`Notice and a Hearing on Final Approval. .................................................................................. 13
`
`D. The Court Should Approve the Form of Notice and Plan for Providing Notice to the Class
`and set a Final Approval Hearing Date. .................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`ii
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Alberto v. GMRI, Inc.,
` 252 F.R.D. 652 (E.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
` 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................. 10, 16
`
`De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., No. 08-CV-03174-MEJ,
` 2017 WL 2670699 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) ..................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 5:17-CV-00603-EJD,
` 2019 WL 6111378 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2019) ........................................................................... 17
`
`Fleming v. Impax Lab’ys Inc., No. 16-CV-06557-HSG,
` 2021 WL 5447008 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021) ........................................................ 10, 11, 13, 15
`
`Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-1365-CW,
` 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Hampton v. Aqua Metals, Inc., No. 17-CV-07142-HSG,
` 2021 WL 4553578 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) ................................................................. 11, 15, 18
`
`Hicks v. Stanley, No. 01 CIV. 10071 (RJH),
` 2005 WL 2757792 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2005) ............................................................................ 12
`
`In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
` 588 F.Supp. 2d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................... 14
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
` 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................... 13, 16
`
`In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-5138 VRW,
` 2007 WL 1991529 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2007) ..................................................................... 15, 18
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
` No. MDL 2672 CRB (JSC), 2019 WL 2077847 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019) ............................. 13
`
`Luz Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs, Inc., No. 20-CV-01613-HSG,
` 2022 WL 307942 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2022) ............................................................. 10, 11, 12, 16
`
`Ochinero v. Ladera Lending, Inc., No. SACV 19-1136 JVS (ADSx),
` 2021 WL 4460334 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2021) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`iii
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Brokop v. Farmland Partners Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-02104-DME-NYW (D. Colo. Apr. 5, 2022) ............................................................ 15
`
`
`Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp., No. C 03 2878 SI,
` 2007 WL 1114010 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) ........................................................................... 12
`
`State of California v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-05874-EJD,
` 2014 WL 4273888 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Vataj v. Johnson, No. 19-CV-06996-HSG,
` 2021 WL 5161927 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021) ................................................................ 11, 14, 18
`
`West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. CIV. S-04-0438 WBS GGH,
` 2006 WL 1652598 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006) ............................................................... 10, 13, 18
`
`Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, No. C-02-4546 VRW,
` 2006 WL 3050861 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2006) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 77k(e) ......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(7) .................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................ 18
`
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`iv
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION
`TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 13, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon as counsel
`may be heard before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge, at the
`United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 2,
`4th floor, Oakland California, Lead Plaintiff Rick Keiner (“Keiner” or “Lead Plaintiff”), will and
`does hereby move for an order: (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of this Action;
`(2) approving the form and manner of giving notice of the proposed settlement to the Class; and
`(3) scheduling a hearing before the Court to determine whether the proposed settlement, and Lead
`Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses,
`should be granted final approval.
`The grounds for this motion are that the proposed settlement is well within the range of
`what could be found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate so that notice of its terms may be
`disseminated to members of the Class and a hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement
`scheduled.
`This motion is supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities in
`support thereof, and the Stipulation of Settlement (“Settlement Agreement” or “Stipulation”) dated
`June 8, 2022, and exhibits thereto which embody the terms of the proposed settlement between the
`parties, submitted herewith, and such other and further representations as may be made by Counsel
`at any hearing on this matter.1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Whether the proposed settlement of this action for the sum of $25,000,000 is within
`the range of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy to warrant the Court’s preliminary approval
`and the dissemination of notice of its terms to members of the Class.
`2.
`Whether the proposed form of settlement notice and proof of claim and release form
`and the manner for dissemination to the members of the Class should be approved.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms shall have their meaning as defined in the
`Stipulation.
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`3.
`Whether the Court should set a date for a hearing for final approval of the proposed
`settlement and the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement
`of Litigation Expenses.
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), Lead Plaintiff respectfully submits this memorandum of
`points and authorities in support of his unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
`settlement of this certified class action. The Settlement Agreement, as set forth in the Stipulation
`of Settlement dated June 8, 2022 (the “Stipulation”) and filed contemporaneously herewith,
`provides for Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) to pay or cause to be paid $25 million in cash for the
`benefit of the Class. Lead Plaintiff believes that the Settlement Agreement would amount to an
`excellent result for the Class, especially considering the substantial challenges and risks of a
`reduced recovery after summary judgment or trial, and requests that this Court grant preliminary
`approval.
`A.
`Statement of Alleged Facts
`Lyft went public on March 28, 2019, offering 32.5 million shares to the public at a price
`of $72.00 per share (the “IPO”). ¶ 5.2 Lyft’s share price began to decline almost immediately
`thereafter. By May 17, 2019, the day this action was filed in the Northern District of California, a
`share of Lyft common stock was worth less than $54.00 per share. ¶ 24.
`Lead Plaintiff alleges that investors were harmed because of misstatements and omissions
`in Lyft’s IPO Registration Statement.
`Lead Plaintiff alleges that Lyft cultivated a brand image as a safer, more socially conscious
`rideshare alternative with a focus on appealing to female passengers. ¶¶ 45–63. After the IPO,
`however, scores of reports came to light of Lyft drivers sexually assaulting their passengers. ¶¶ 65,
`73–84. Dozens of individuals brought claims against Lyft related to driver sexual misconduct in
`the months following the IPO. ¶¶ 73–84. Lead Plaintiff claims that Lyft’s Registration Statement
`failed to disclose this existential risk to Lyft’s brand and business. ¶ 67.
`
`
`2 Citations to “¶” are to the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations
`of Federal Securities Laws, ECF No. 205-5.
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`Lead Plaintiff further alleges that Lyft’s nascent bikeshare fleet was plagued by defects and
`maintenance issues, threatening an investment that Lyft had hailed as a “key milestone” in its
`growth strategy. ¶¶ 146–49, 152. Just weeks after the IPO, Lyft was forced to pull its entire fleet
`of electric bikes from three major markets because of a particular braking issue that had caused
`dozens of rider injuries. ¶¶ 158–59. Lead Plaintiff alleges that Lyft’s Registration Statement did
`not discuss the problems Lyft was experiencing with bike maintenance and safety. ¶ 174.
`Finally, Lead Plaintiff alleges that in the lead up to the IPO and in its registration statement,
`Lyft repeatedly touted its growth in market share and especially how it managed to take share from
`its rival Uber while reducing its reliance on promotional coupons. ¶¶ 90–106. Lyft, however, had
`again increased its reliance on price promotions in the months before the IPO. ¶ 107. Lead Plaintiff
`further alleges that Lyft’s price promotions triggered a price war with Uber that saw Uber reclaim
`market share from Lyft, ¶¶ 111–13, but that Lyft’s Registration Statement represented that Lyft’s
`market share was stable, if not increasing, as a key selling point to investors, ¶¶ 100–06.
`B.
`Procedural History
`On May 17, 2019, Matias Malig filed the first of two consolidated securities class actions
`alleging violations of §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”)
`against Defendants and the Underwriters in this Court. See ECF No. 1.3 After the Court appointed
`Rick Keiner to serve as Lead Plaintiff, ECF No. 64, Keiner filed his Consolidated Amended Class
`Action Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”) on April 16, 2020. See ECF No.
`96.
`Motion Practice:
`Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on May 14, 2020. ECF No. 78. On September 8,
`2020, the Court denied Defendants’ motion with respect to certain omissions regarding driver
`sexual misconduct and bikeshare maintenance but granted the motion and dismissed the remainder
`
`
`3 A parallel case alleging Securities Act claims against Defendants is also pending in the California
`Superior Court, County of San Francisco, captioned In re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
`CGC-19-575293 (the “State Action”). On January 25, 2022, Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng of the
`California Superior Court stayed the State Action and denied plaintiffs’ motion for class
`certification without prejudice. See Block Decl. at ¶ 45.
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`of Lead Plaintiff’s allegations. See ECF No. 96. At this time, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
`without prejudice the Underwriters (as defined in Stipulation ¶ 1.32) and his § 12(a)(2) claim. ECF
`No. 85. However, Lead Plaintiff reserved the right to add the Underwriters back as parties.
`On September 25, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification, ECF No.
`98, which Defendants opposed on January 19, 2021, ECF No. 117. While the Motion for Class
`Certification was pending, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No.
`152. On August 20, 2021, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, ECF
`No. 177, and denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 179.
`On September 30, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File [Proposed]
`Second Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 206, which Defendants opposed, ECF No.
`230. The Second Amended Complaint added claims that Lyft had become engaged in an alleged
`price war with Uber that was eroding Lyft’s market share gains, contrary to representations in the
`Registration Statement that price competition was declining and Lyft’s market share increasing.
`ECF No. 206-2 at ¶ 17. The Court had not yet reached a decision on Lead Plaintiff’s motion to file
`the Second Amended Complaint by the time the Settling Parties (as defined in Stipulation ¶ 1.29)
`informed the Court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle on February 8, 2022. See ECF
`No. 240. As a result, Plaintiff’s motion was terminated as moot without prejudice. ECF No. 242.
`The Settling Parties have stipulated to designate the Second Amended Complaint as the operative
`complaint prior to filing this Motion, Defendants continue to deny the allegations stated therein.
`Discovery:
`The PSLRA’s automatic discovery stay lifted upon the partial denial of Defendants’ motion
`to dismiss on September 8, 2020 and the Settling Parties began negotiating discovery shortly
`thereafter. See Stipulation at 2. Lead Plaintiff made productions of documents on September 30,
`2020 and December 21, 2020, and sat for a deposition on November 17, 2020 See Declaration of
`Jeffrey C. Block In Support of Lead Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
`Settlement (“Block Decl.”) at ¶¶ 9, 12, 34. Defendants made productions on January 18, 2021;
`January 19, 2021; January 29, 2021; July 12, 2021; July 19, 2021; August 20, 2021; September 8,
`2021; September 20, 2021; October 4, 2021; October 8, 2021; October 28, 2021; November 13,
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`2021; November 16, 2021; November 19, 2021; November 30, 2021; December 13, 2021; and
`December 24, 2021. Id. at ¶¶ 13–28. Discovery was frequently contentious. The Settling Parties
`held at least twenty-three meet and confers between January 4, 2021 and January 24, 2022 on
`discovery issues, id. at ¶ 32, and filed four motions to compel or discovery letter briefs, see ECF
`Nos. 131, 139, 157, 198. Lead Plaintiff served a third-party document subpoena on the
`Underwriters on October 27, 2020. Block Decl. ¶ 39. The Underwriters served written responses
`and produced documents on December 21, 2020, and May 3, 2021, respectively. Id. In addition to
`other third-party document requests,4 Lead Plaintiff served a subpoena on Defendants’ counsel in
`November 2021 requesting counsel produce its communications with certain Class Members and
`Defendants in turn issued a subpoena for all of Lead Counsel’s communications with Class
`Members. Block Decl. at ¶¶ 41–42. Lead Plaintiff, through his counsel, took his first deposition of
`a Lyft employee on January 14, 2022 and soon thereafter noticed the depositions of nineteen
`additional persons. Id. at ¶ 36.
`C.
`Settlement Negotiations
`After certifying the Class, the Court called the Settling Parties to a case management
`conference on August 31, 2021. ECF No. 195. At the conference, the Court directed the Settling
`Parties to file a stipulation and proposed order selecting an ADR process by September 8, 2021.
`Id. The Settling Parties complied, selecting Private ADR as their chosen ADR process and
`agreeing to hold the ADR session by December 15, 2021. ECF No. 200.
`On November 2, 2021, the Settling Parties participated in a formal mediation. Block Decl.
`at ¶ 51. David Murphy of Phillips ADR served as mediator. Id. at ¶ 49. Mr. Murphy has five years’
`experience as a mediator, and over three decades of experience in complex litigation, including
`securities cases.5 The November 2, 2021 mediation did not result in a settlement agreement. See
`
`
`4 Lead Plaintiff also served document requests on sixty-one non-parties over the course of
`discovery. See Block Decl. at ¶ 39.
`5 Mr. Murphy’s Bio states in part that: “Over the past five years with Phillips ADR, David has
`served as a mediator, arbitrator and independent monitor in hundreds of cases, including antitrust,
`patent, securities law, corporate governance, bankruptcy, environmental, tort, contract and
`investment company disputes.” David Murphy: Mediator/Arbitrator/Independent Panelist,
`Phillips ADR (last visited March 10, 2022), http://www.phillipsadr.com/bios/david-murphy/.
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`id. at ¶ 51. The Settling Parties reengaged in settlement discussions in November and December
`2021. Id. at ¶53. However, these discussions still failed to produce a resolution. Id. In January
`2022, the parties reengaged Mr. Murphy to facilitate negotiations, though these discussions again
`failed. Id. at ¶ 54. Finally, in early February 2022, the parties again reengaged Mr. Murphy to
`mediate negotiations. Id. at ¶ 55. On February 4, 2022, Mr. Murphy made a mediator’s
`recommendation to settle the action for $25 million. Id. The Settling Parties mutually agreed-in-
`principle to Mr. Murphy’s recommendation on February 7, 2022. Id.
`II.
`THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`A.
`Settlement Consideration
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant Lyft will pay or cause to be paid
`consideration of $25,000,000 (the “Settlement Amount”) in cash into an Escrow Account for the
`benefit of the Class. The Settlement Amount, after the deduction of any attorneys’ fees and
`Litigation Expenses provided for in the Stipulation or approved by the Court and less Notice and
`Administration Expenses, Taxes and Tax Expenses, and other Court-approved deductions (the
`“Net Settlement Fund”), will be distributed among Class Members who timely submit valid Proof
`of Claim and Release Forms (“Authorized Claimants”), in accordance with the Plan of Allocation
`set forth in the Stipulation and Notice. See Ex. A-1 at 14. The $25 million settlement represents
`approximately 77 cents per share issued in the IPO (before the deduction of any Court-approved
`fees, expenses and costs). See Block Decl. at ¶ 58.
`B.
`Settlement Class and Claims
`There are no differences between the Class as certified by the court and the Class that will
`be entitled to share in the Settlement, except that certain individuals who are presently members
`of the Class may request exclusion.
`As a condition of the Settlement Agreement, Lead Plaintiff and the Class will release the
`claims this Court certified the class to pursue, see ECF No. 177, specifically, Securities Act
`Sections 11 and 15 claims arising from Lyft’s IPO Registration Statement as against all
`Defendants. Additionally, Lead Plaintiff and the Class will release all claims that could have been
`asserted in this action, or in any other action, that (a) arise out of, are based upon, or relate in any
`
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`way to any of the allegations or facts that were or could have been alleged in this action, or (b)
`arise out of, are based upon, or relate in any way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale, or
`disposition of any Lyft securities acquired pursuant and/or traceable to Lyft’s Registration
`Statement, see Stipulation ¶ 1.22, against all Released Defendant Parties, including the
`Underwriters,6 see Stipulation ¶ 1.24.
`C.
`Settlement Administration
`The Claims administrator will calculate each Authorized Claimant’s claim amount based
`on the information each Class Member supplies in her or his Proof of Claim and Release. The Net
`Settlement Fund will be allocated pro rata pursuant to the Plan of Allocation and based on the
`amount of each Authorized Claimant’s Recognized Claim as calculated by the Claims
`Administrator after the Effective Date. Such calculations shall be made using the damages formula
`of Section 11(e). See Ex. A-1 at 15. Defendants do not have a reversionary interest in the Net
`Settlement Fund unless the settlement is terminated. See Stipulation at ¶ 3.10.
`Lead Plaintiff has selected A.B. Data for Court approval as Claims Administrator. A.B.
`Data previously served as Notice Administrator after the Class was certified and was selected
`among numerous administrators after providing a competitive quote for notice and administration
`services at that time. A.B. Data is familiar with the case, and has successfully sent or caused to be
`sent over 250,000 notices to Class Members. See ECF No. 232 at ¶ 7; Block Decl. at ¶ 56. Given
`that A.B. Data has already put in much of the work necessary to ensure that the largest possible
`number of Class Members receive notice, including processing numerous change-of-address
`requests, Lead Plaintiff believes A.B. Data’s selection as Claims Administrator represents the most
`efficient and, in terms of administrative expenses, cost-effective means of providing notice to the
`class. Lead Counsel has engaged A.B. Data to serve as notice or claims administrator twice over
`the past two years, including earlier in this action. See Block Decl. at ¶ 56.
`
`
`6 Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against the Underwriters from this action, see
`ECF No. 85, and therefore the Released Claims against the Underwriters were not among the
`claims initially certified for class treatment. Nonetheless, releasing claims against the
`Underwriters is sensible here for the reasons described below in Section III.C.
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`A.B. Data estimates that 20-25% of potential Class Members who receive a Notice will
`submit a claim. Id. at ¶ 57. A.B. Data based its estimate on its experience with settlements in
`federal securities class actions.
`Lead Plaintiff anticipates Notice and Settlement Administration Expenses of no greater
`than $500,000. Lead Plaintiff believes these costs are reasonable as they amount to just 2% or less
`of the Settlement Amount. The Notice and Administrative Expenses will be paid from the
`Settlement Fund.
`D.
`Attorneys’ Fees and Service Award
`Lead Counsel expects to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount
`not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund, or $6,250,000. This represents a 1.72 multiplier over
`Lead Counsel’s current estimated lodestar of approximately $3.6 million, and amounts to
`approximately 19 cents per eligible share of Lyft common stock. See Block Decl. at ¶ 59. To date,
`Lead Counsel has billed over 5,900 hours in this action. In addition, Lead Counsel will seek
`payment in an amount not to exceed $550,000 for Litigation Expenses reasonably incurred while
`prosecuting this action.
`Finally, pursuant to the PSLRA and this Court’s approval, Lead Plaintiff intends to apply
`for reimbursement of his reasonable costs and expenses related to his representation of the Class,
`not to exceed $10,000.
`E.
`Cy Pres Awardee
`Defendants will not have a reversionary interest in the Net Settlement Fund in the event
`there is any balance remaining after the distribution. Instead, Lead Counsel will make further
`distributions to Authorized Claimants until the balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is de
`minimis. See Stipulation at ¶ 6.8. At that point, any remaining balance, subject to the Court’s
`approval, will be donated to the National Women’s Law Center. National Women’s Law Center,
`among other initiatives, helps victims and institutions redress incidents of sexual harassment.7
`
`7 See, e.g., Legal Help for Sex Discrimination and Harassment, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
`(last visited May 10, 2022), https://nwlc.org/times-up-legal-defense-fund/legal-help-for-sex-
`discrimination-and-harassment/; The Be Heard in the Workplace Act: Addressing Harassment to
`Achieve Equality, Safety, and Dignity on the Job, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER (Apr. 2019),
`LEAD PL.’S MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
`8
`CASE NO. 4:19-CV-02690-HSG
`
`
`
`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 4:19-cv-02690-HSG Document 249 Filed 06/16/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`Lead Plaintiff’s liability theory in this action is that investors were injured in part because of Lyft’s
`institutional failure to confront sexual violence. Lead Plaintiff believes that improved norms and
`transparency around issues of sexual violence will benefit the investing public at large and indeed
`could have prevented some of the losses investors suffered in this case. 8
`F.
`Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Notice
`Defendants shall be responsible for determining the identity of those who will receive
`CAFA Notice and the form such notice shall take. Defendants will, at their own cost, serve proper
`notice of the Settlement Agreement under CAFA no later than ten days after the Settlement
`Agreement is filed with the Court.
`G.
`Past Distributions
`As an example of a prior settlement which has been fully administered, Lead Counsel,
`consistent with the Court’s guidance, provides information about In re EZCorp, Inc. Securities
`Litigation, Case No. 1:15-CV-00608-SS (W.D. Tex.), which received final approval from the
`United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 6, 2019, and which
`has now been fully distributed. The details concerning the distribution of that settlement are
`summarized below.
`
`
`
`https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BE-HEARD-Factsheet.pdf;
`#ThatsHarassment
`Campaign Tools Can Help Employers Prevent Harassment, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
`(Jan. 31, 2018), https://nwlc.org/thatsharassment-campaign-tools-can-help-employers-prevent-
`harassment/; Sarah Crawford & Sharyn Tejani, What Works at Work: Promising practices to
`prevent and respond to sexual harassment in low-paid jobs, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
`(2020), https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Convening-report_English-Final.pdf; Maya
`Raghu & JoAnna Suriani, #MeTooWhatNext: Strengthening Workplace Sexual Harassment
`Protections and Accountability, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER (Dec. 21, 2017),
`https://nwlc.org/resource/metoowhatnext-strengthening-workplace-sexual-harassment-
`protections-and-accountability/; Amanda Rossie, Jasmine Tucker, & Kayla Patrick, Out of the
`Shadows: An Analysis of Sexual Harassment Charges Filed by Working Women, NATIONAL
`WOMEN’S LAW CENTER (2018), http