Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local 27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
This text of Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local 27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local 27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND Case No. 24-cv-00706-JSC GLAZIERS UNION LOCAL #27 8 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 9 Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF 10 v. LEAD COUNSEL
11 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Glazing Employers and Glaziers’ Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund 14 brings this putative securities class action against Defendant iRhythm Technologies, Inc. 15 (iRhythm) for making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to artificially 16 inflate the price of iRhythm stock in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 17 Before the Court is Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System’s unopposed motion 18 for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead counsel. (Dkt. No. 15.) 19 Having carefully considered the briefing, the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary, see 20 Civ. L. R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the unopposed motion. The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and 21 Retirement System has demonstrated the largest financial interest in the litigation and made a 22 prima facie showing it is an adequate class representative. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff alleges two claims against iRhythm under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities 25 Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 10, 67-77.) Oklahoma 26 Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (Oklahoma Firefighters) seek appointment as lead 27 1 plaintiff pursuant to § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) and approval of their selection of counsel pursuant to § 2 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). 3 I. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff 4 The Court must appoint “as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported 5 plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests 6 of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The Exchange Act presumes “the most 7 adequate plaintiff” is the individual who (1) “has either filed the complaint or made a motion in 8 response to a notice”; (2) “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class”; and 9 (3) “otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. 10 § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). This presumption “may be rebutted only upon proof by a member of the 11 purported plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff—” (1) “will not fairly and 12 adequately protect the interests of the class; or” (2) “is subject to unique defenses that render such 13 plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). 14 Oklahoma Firefighters filed a timely “motion in response to a notice” for appointment as 15 lead plaintiff, thereby satisfying the first element of the § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) presumption. (Dkt. 16 No. 15.) No competing motions were filed. (Dkt. No. 21.) 17 The second element of the presumption is to be the plaintiff “who has the greatest financial 18 stake in the outcome of the case.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 19 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)). Oklahoma Firefighters incurred losses amounting to $581,886.76 20 on its purchases of 25,185 shares of iRhythm common stock from January 11, 2022, to May 30, 21 2023. (Dkt. Nos. 1 ¶ 1, 15-2, 15-3.) No other party has come forward to assert a larger stake. So, 22 Oklahoma Firefighters has satisfied the second element by showing the greatest financial stake in 23 the outcome of this case. 24 The final element of the presumption is to “otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” which demands “a prima facie showing of adequacy and 26 typicality.” In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 899 (9th Cir. 2021). “Courts determine whether a plaintiff 27 will adequately represent a class by answering two questions: (1) do the movant and its ‘counsel 1 prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?’” Id. at 899-900 (quoting Ellis v. Costco 2 Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011)). “At this step, the process is not adversarial, 3 so the Rule 23 determination should be based on only the movant’s pleadings and declarations.” 4 Id. at 899. Oklahoma Firefighters’s “pleadings and declarations” establish Oklahoma 5 Firefighters’s “interests are aligned with those of the other Class members and are not antagonistic 6 in any way” and “its substantial financial stake in the litigation provides it with the incentive to 7 vigorously represent the Class’s claims.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 12.) So, Oklahoma Firefighters has 8 fulfilled Rule 23’s adequacy requirement. 9 As to Rule 23’s typicality requirement, “[t]he test of typicality is whether other members 10 have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the 11 named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of 12 conduct.” Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2018). 13 According to Oklahoma Firefighters, “[l]ike all other Class members, Oklahoma Firefighters (1) 14 purchased iRhythm common stock during the Class Period, (2) at prices allegedly artificially 15 inflated by Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions, and (3) was 16 harmed when the truth was revealed.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 11-12.) Because “Oklahoma Firefighters 17 and all other Class members suffered the same injuries, their claims arise from the same course of 18 events, and their legal arguments to prove Defendants’ liability are nearly identical”, Oklahoma 19 Firefighters has fulfilled Rule 23’s typicality requirement. (Id.); see Ali v. Intel Corp., No. 18-CV- 20 00507-YGR, 2018 WL 2412111, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) (finding typicality satisfied when 21 “claims arise out of the same events and are based on the same legal theories as the claims of other 22 class members.”); see also City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Align 23 Tech., Inc., No. 12-CV-06039-LHK, 2013 WL 2368059, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) (finding 24 typicality when, “like all other members of the purported class, the Retirement System purchased 25 Align common stock during the Class Period, allegedly in reliance upon Defendants’ purported 26 false and misleading statements, and alleged[ly] suffered damages as a result.”). So, Oklahoma 27 Firefighters has satisfied the presumption’s third element. 1 presumption and no other party has presented proof to show otherwise, Oklahoma Firefighters is 2 || presumed the most adequate plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court APPOINTS Oklahoma Firefighters 3 as class representative. 4 Il. Approval of Selection of Counsel 5 Oklahoma Firefighters selected Bernstein Litowitz to serve as lead counsel for the class. 6 (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 14, 15-4.) “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the 7 district court should generally defer to that choice.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of 8 California, 586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court APPOINTS Bernstein 9 Litowitz as lead counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local 27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund-cand-2024.