Case 4:22-cv-04688-YGR Document 22 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DONGPING CAO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.,
`
`CASE NO. 22-cv-4688-YGR
`
`ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND
`APPROVING SELECTION OF LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 11
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Now before the Court is movant Robert Long’s motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
`
`and for approval of selection of lead counsel.1 (Dkt. No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below,
`
`Movant Long’s motion is GRANTED.2
`
`I.
`
`APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF
`
`The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 instructs district courts “to select as
`
`lead plaintiff the one ‘most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.’” In
`
`re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)). The
`
`“most capable” plaintiff is generally “the one who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome
`
`of the case, so long as he meets the requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23.” Id. “In
`
`other words, the district court must compare the financial stake of the various plaintiffs and
`
`determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit. It must then focus its attention on that
`
`plaintiff and determine, based on the information [plaintiff] has provided in [its] pleadings and
`
`declarations, whether [it] satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’
`
`and ‘adequacy.’” Id. at 730.
`
`
`1 Movant Erfan Mohammadian also filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and
`for approval of selection of lead counsel. (Dkt. No. 11.) However, following the review of
`Movant Long’s moving papers, Movant Mohammadian filed a statement of non-opposition to
`Movant Long’s motion. (See Dkt No. 16.) The motion is thereby unopposed.
`
`2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
`finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court
`VACATES the motion hearing set for NOVEMBER 22, 2022.
`
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04688-YGR Document 22 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 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
`
`Movant Long submitted a declaration certifying that he suffered losses of approximately
`
`$2,623,662.24 on his investments in Uber Technologies (“Uber”) common stock. (See Dkt. No. 8-
`
`3.) The Court has reviewed the supporting materials and finds that Movant Long has alleged the
`
`greatest financial loss.
`
`Next, Movant Long has made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy under Rule
`
`23(a). The typicality requirement is readily satisfied as Movant Long’s claims arise out of the
`
`same events and are based on the same legal theories as the claims of other class members. See
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[R]epresentative claims are
`
`‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be
`
`substantially identical.”). The Court is similarly satisfied that Movant Long will adequately
`
`represent the interests of class members. Based on the firm resume of The Rosen Law Firm P.A
`
`(see Dkt. No. 8-4), Movant Long’s attorneys appear competent and there is no suggestion of any
`
`antagonistic interests or collusive action. As the plaintiff with the highest financial interest,
`
`Movant Long has a strong incentive to pursue vigorously a substantial recovery for all putative
`
`class members. See Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1135 (C.D. Cal.
`
`1999) (“The Ninth Circuit has held that representation is ‘adequate’ when counsel for the class is
`
`qualified and competent, the representative’s interests are not antagonistic to the interests of absent
`
`class members, and it is unlikely that the action is collusive.”) (citing in re N. Dist. of Cal., Dalkon
`
`Shield IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 693 F.2d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 1982)).
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that Movant Long is the appropriate lead plaintiff.
`
`II.
`
`APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) provides: “The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the
`
`approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” Here, Movant Long has
`
`selected The Rosen Law Firm P.A. to serve as his counsel. (Mot. at 7-8.) The Rosen Law Firm
`
`P.A. appears to have significant experience litigating securities class actions. (Dkt. No. 8-4.)
`
`Because Movant Long has made a “reasonable choice of counsel,” the Court will “defer to that
`
`choice” and appoint the firm lead counsel. See Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 586
`
`F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04688-YGR Document 22 Filed 11/10/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In sum, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Movant Long’s motion for
`
`appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead counsel. The Court thus
`
`APPOINTS Movant Robert Long as lead plaintiff and APPOINTS The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead
`
`counsel to represent the class in the class action. A joint proposed schedule for the filing of a
`
`consolidated or amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of this Order, or if Lead Plaintiff
`
`confirms that he does not intend to further amend the initial complaint at that time, a proposed
`
`schedule for defendants’ time to respond to the complaint shall be filed within this timeline.
`
`This Order terminates Docket Numbers 7 and 11.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`November 10, 2022
`Dated:
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`