Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Azar v. Yelp, Inc., 18-cv-00400-EMC. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180501800 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOVANT JONATHAN DAVIS'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS INTERIM LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL Docket No. 13 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS Movant Jonathan Davis's motion for appointment as interim lead plaintiff and his request to appoint Glancy Prongay & Murlay LLP and Holzel & Holzel LLC as interim co-lead counsel. The requirements for such appointment under the Private Securities Litigation Ref
More

ORDER GRANTING MOVANT JONATHAN DAVIS'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS INTERIM LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL

Docket No. 13

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS Movant Jonathan Davis's motion for appointment as interim lead plaintiff and his request to appoint Glancy Prongay & Murlay LLP and Holzel & Holzel LLC as interim co-lead counsel. The requirements for such appointment under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 ("PSLRA") have been satisfied.

First, adequate notice of the action was published to prospective class members through Business Wire on January 18, 2018. See Docket No. 8; 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A).

Second, Mr. Davis is the sole remaining applicant for lead plaintiff. He claims to have suffered losses of over $90,000 from the same fraud allegedly perpetrated against the class and has certified his commitment to prosecute claims on behalf of the class. Being an adequate representative with claims typical of the class, he is the applicant "most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members." 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).

Third, Mr. Davis has selected the Glancy and Holzel firms to represent him, and the Court defers to Mr. Davis's "reasonable choice of counsel." In re Cohen v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2009). The firms are adequate to represent the class in light of their experience with similar securities litigation, their work investigating and preparing this case thus far, and their willingness to commit resources to prosecute the case. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

This order disposes of Docket No. 13.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer