Marco Munguia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. aTyr Pharma Inc., and Sanjay S. Shukla; John King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. aTyr Pharma Inc., and Sanjay S. Shukla

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MARCO MUNGUIA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC individually and on behalf of all 9 others similarly situated, 10 Plaintiff,

11 v. 12 aTyr PHARMA Inc., and

13 SANJAY S. SHUKLA,

14 Defendants.

15 __________________________________ 16 Case No.: 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC JOHN KING,

17 individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, 18 Plaintiff, 19

20 v.

21 aTyr PHARMA Inc., and

SANJAY S. SHUKLA, 22 Defendants. ORDER 23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matter before the Court is the Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Appoint 25 Counsel, and Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed by Andrea Holliday Bloom, Joshua Bloom, 26 Insun Lee, Anthony Fairris, and Karyn Fairris. (ECF No. 18.) 27

28 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff Marco Munguia filed a Complaint against Defendants 3 aTyr Pharma Inc. (“aTyr”) and Sanjay S. Shukla (together, “Defendants”) claiming 4 violations of federal securities laws related to Defendants’ development of a pharmaceutical 5 product named Efzofitimod. (ECF No. 1, Munguia v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 6 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC (“this action” or “the Munguia action”).)1 Plaintiff Munguia’s 7 Complaint seeks damages on behalf of all investors who purchased or acquired aTyr 8 common stock during the period between January 16, 2025, and September 12, 2025. Id. 9 at 2. 10 On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff John King filed a similar complaint in the Southern 11 District of California stating claims against Defendants for violations of federal securities 12 laws related to the development of Efzofitimod. (ECF No. 1, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et 13 al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC (the “King action”).) Plaintiff King’s Complaint 14 seeks damages on behalf of all investors who purchased or acquired aTyr common stock, 15 call options on aTyr common stock, and/or put options on aTyr common stock during the 16 period between November 7, 2024, and September 12, 2025. Id. at 2. 17 On December 8, 2025, Movant Michael Todd filed a motion in this action seeking 18 consolidation of these two cases, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of his legal 19 representatives as lead counsel in the consolidated action. (ECF No. 4.) On December 17, 20 2025, Movant Michael Todd withdrew that motion. (ECF No. 10.) 21 On December 8, 2025, Movant Wallace Madewell filed a motion seeking 22 consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 5.) On 23 the same day, Movant Wallace Madewell filed an identical motion in the King action. (ECF 24 No. 5, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) On December 25 26

27 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to docket entries in this Order refer to filings in the Munguia 28 1 29, 2025, Movant Wallace Madewell withdrew those motions. (ECF No. 13; ECF No. 6, 2 King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) 3 On December 8, 2025, Movants Daniel Gron and Stanley Mwaura filed a motion 4 seeking appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and approval of co-lead counsel. (ECF No. 6.) 5 On January 5, 2026, Movants Daniel Gron and Stanely Mwaura filed a Notice of Non- 6 Opposition. (ECF No. 17.) 7 On December 8, 2025, Movant Benjamin Pease filed a motion seeking 8 consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 7.) 9 On December 29, 2025, Movant Benjamin Pease withdrew that motion. (ECF No. 14.) 10 On December 8, 2025, Movants Andrea Holliday Bloom and Joshua Bloom 11 (together, “Bloom Family”) filed a motion seeking consolidation, appointment as lead 12 plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 8.) 13 On December 8, 2025, Movants Insun Lee (“Lee”), Anthony Fairris, and Karyn 14 Fairris (together, “Fairris Family”) filed a motion seeking consolidation, appointment as 15 co-lead plaintiffs, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 9.) On December 29, 2025, 16 Movants Insun Lee and Fairris Family filed a Notice of Non-Opposition indicating their 17 assent to the appointment of Bloom Family as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 15.) 18 On January 5, 2026, Movants Bloom Family, Fairris Family, and Lee (together, 19 “Moving Plaintiffs”) filed a joint motion (the “Joint Motion”) seeking consolidation, 20 appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and approval of their respective legal representatives— 21 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (“Hagens Berman”) and Pomerantz LLP 22 (“Pomerantz”)—as co-lead counsel in this action. (ECF No. 18.) 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A. Consolidation 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 states that, “[i]f actions before the court involve 26 a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 42(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has written that federal district courts “enjoy 28 substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.” Hall v. 1 Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018). The Ninth Circuit has endorsed the same principle. In re 2 Adams Apple, 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[C]onsolidation is within the broad 3 discretion of the district court.”); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 4 2008); Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th 5 Cir. 1989). 6 Consolidation is a tool used to promote the efficiency of judicial proceedings. 7 “[C]onsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, 8 but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make 9 those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 10 U.S. 479, 496 (1933). In exercising its discretion to order consolidation of multiple actions 11 presenting common issues of law or fact under Rule 42(a), a district court “weighs the 12 saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, 13 or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); see also 14 Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (A “[c]ourt 15 should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion 16 and prejudice.”). 17 Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. 18 §78u-4, et seq., a district court must adjudicate any motions to consolidate before 19 appointing a lead plaintiff in a securities class action brought under the Securities and 20 Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Id. at § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii) (“If more than one 21 action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under 22 this chapter has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial 23 purposes or for trial, the court shall not make the determination required by clause (i) until 24 after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered. As soon as practicable after 25 such decision is rendered, the court shall appoint the most adequate plaintiff as lead 26 plaintiff for the consolidated actions in accordance with this paragraph.”); see also 27 Richardson v. TVIA, Inc., No. C 06 06304 RMW, 2007 WL 1129344, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28 16, 2007). 1 B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel 2 The PSLRA requires that a district court “appoint as lead plaintiff the member or 3 members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of 4 adequately representing the interests of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). In 5 determining which member or members are most capable of representing the interests of 6 class members, a district court “shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff” 7 is the person or group that (a) has either filed the complaint or moved for appointment as 8 lead plaintiff, (b) “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class,” and 9 (c) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). 10 Id. at §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)–(cc). 11 District courts undertake a three-step analysis to determine the most appropriate lead 12 plaintiff under the PSLRA. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the 13 plaintiff that files a complaint must publicize the action in a “widely circulated national 14 business-oriented publication or wire service” within twenty days of filing the complaint. 15 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Second, the district court determines the presumptive lead 16 plaintiff by assessing financial losses suffered by those seeking appointment as the lead 17 plaintiff. “In other words, the district court must compare the financial stakes of the various 18 plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit. It must then focus 19 its attention on that plaintiff and determine, based on the information he has provided in 20 his pleadings and declarations, whether he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in 21 particular those of ‘typicality” and “adequacy.’” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. If the 22 plaintiff with the “largest financial stake in the controversy provides information that 23 satisfies these requirements,” that plaintiff shall become the “presumptively most adequate 24 plaintiff.” Id. Third, the district court will provide other moving plaintiffs the “opportunity 25 to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and 26 adequacy requirements.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). 27 28 1 Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, the PSLRA provides that the “most 2 adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to 3 represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Motion to Consolidate 6 Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court consolidate the two cases in this district 7 asserting violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act 8 against Defendants: the Munguia action and the King action. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Moving 9 Plaintiffs contend that consolidation is warranted because these actions “involve common 10 questions of both law and fact.” Id. 11 These cases are both federal securities class actions arising from alleged 12 misstatements disseminated by Defendant aTyr Pharma Inc. related to its “Phase 3, 13 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 14 intravenous Efzofitimod in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.” (ECF No. 1 at 2–3; see 15 also ECF No. 1 at 2, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC (describing 16 the action in nearly identical terms).) The causes of action asserted in the two complaints 17 are identical. These substantial similarities weigh heavily in favor of consolidation. 18 Moreover, no party has indicated that they oppose consolidation. 19 The relevant difference between the two actions is the Class Period. In the Munguia 20 action, the Complaint identifies the period as “between January 16, 2025, and September 21 12, 2026, inclusive.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) In the King action, the complaint identifies the 22 period as “between November 7, 2024, and September 12, 2025, inclusive.” (ECF No. 1 at 23 2, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) District courts may choose 24 to consolidate related actions despite “minor differences in class periods.” Alonzo v. 25 Dexcom Inc., No. 24-CV-1485-RSH-VET, 2024 WL 5112751, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 26 2024). For the purposes of appointing a lead plaintiff in such cases, the “longest class 27 period governs.” Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc., No. 13-CV- 28 05368-LHK, 2014 WL 2604991, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014). Here, the Class 1 Period is the period described in the King action lasting from November 7, 2024, through 2 September 12, 2025, inclusive. 3 Consolidation of these actions is appropriate because the proceedings will be 4 simplified, and both actions may proceed with greater efficiency. “Courts have recognized 5 that class action shareholder suits are particularly well suited to consolidation pursuant 6 to Rule 42(a) because unification expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication, 7 avoids the need to contact parties and witnesses for multiple proceedings, and minimizes 8 the expenditure of time and money for all parties involved.” Hardy v. MabVax 9 Therapeutics Holdings, No. 18-CV-01160-BAS-NLS, 2018 WL 4252345, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 10 Sept. 6, 2018) (quoting Hessefort v. Super Micro Comput., Inc., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 11 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). The Joint Motion (ECF No. 18) is granted with respect to 12 consolidation. 13 B. Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs 14 Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Bloom Family and Lee as Co-Lead 15 Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) 16 Moving Plaintiffs contend that Bloom Family should be appointed as co-lead 17 plaintiff because they suffered $791,654.76 in losses as a result of purchasing aTyr 18 securities during the Class Period, and that this amount is the largest financial loss among 19 all potential lead plaintiffs. Id. at 3. In support of their earlier, individual motion for 20 consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff, Bloom Family submitted the Declaration 21 of Lucas E. Gilmore documenting Bloom Family’s purchases of aTyr securities and 22 financial losses during the Class Period. (See ECF Nos. 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-4). Moving 23 Plaintiffs also contend that Bloom Family satisfies the typicality requirement of Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because their claims arise from the purchase of aTyr 25 securities during the Class Period and, like other members of the class, Bloom Family 26 suffered damages because of Defendants’ allegedly false or misleading statements. (ECF 27 No. 8 at 6–7.) Moving Plaintiffs contend that Bloom Family satisfies the adequacy 28 requirement of Rule 23(a) because “there is no evidence of antagonism between [their] 1 interests and those of proposed class members” and their substantial financial losses will 2 motivate them to vigorously pursue the interests of the class. Id. at 7. 3 Moving Plaintiffs contend that Lee should also be appointed as co-lead plaintiff 4 because she suffered approximately $133,498.00 in losses as a result of purchasing aTyr 5 securities during the Class Period. (ECF No. 18 at 3; ECF No. 9-2 at 7.) In support of their 6 earlier motion for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff, Lee and Fairris Family 7 submitted the Declaration of Jennifer Pafiti documenting her purchases of aTyr securities 8 and financial losses during the Class Period. (See ECF No. 9-2). Moving Plaintiffs contend 9 that Lee satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements for the same reasons that Bloom 10 Family does. (ECF No. 8 at 3; see also ECF No. 9 at 15–20.) 11 Moving Plaintiffs also contend that the “proposed co-lead plaintiff structure will 12 inure to the benefit of the Class as the co-lead plaintiffs will represent a broader cross- 13 section of the Class as the Bloom Family and Lee bought [aTyr] securities at different times 14 during the Class Period, thereby better ensuring that all class members are monitored and 15 protected throughout the litigation” and “bring a broader range of specialized expertise in 16 securities class action litigation” through the appointment of each movant’s respective 17 counsel. (ECF No. 18 at 4.) 18 1. Procedural Requirements 19 On October 9, 2025, notice of the pendency of this action was published in a national 20 business-oriented wire service entitled Globe Newswire. (ECF No. 8-6; see also ECF No. 21 9-2 at 16–17). The notice complied with the requirements of the PSLRA because it was 22 published within twenty days of the filing of the complaint, listed the claims in this action, 23 identified the Class Period, and advised putative class members that they had sixty days 24 from the date of publication of the notice to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the action. 25 See id.; 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A). 26 Bloom Family filed their earlier motion for consolidation and appointment as lead 27 plaintiff on December 8, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) Lee filed her equivalent motion on the same 28 day. Therefore, Moving Plaintiffs timely filed their motions within the permissible period 1 described in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) notwithstanding their filing the revised, 2 pending Joint Motion on January 5, 2026. (ECF No. 18.) The procedural requirements of 3 the PLSRA are satisfied. 4 2. Financial Interest 5 District courts consider the Olsten-Lax factors to assess which movants have the 6 largest financial interest in a securities class action: “(1) the number of shares purchased 7 during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period; (3) 8 the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses 9 suffered.” In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 10 1998) (citing Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036 at *5 (N.D. Ill. 11 Aug. 11, 1997)). The fourth factor—the total losses suffered—is the “most determinative 12 in identifying the plaintiff with the largest financial loss.” Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344, 13 at *3. 14 Based on the Exhibits submitted in support of their earlier motion for appointment 15 as lead counsel, Bloom Family has the largest financial interest in this action: $791,645.76 16 in alleged damages. (See ECF No. 8-2 at 2.) Lee has neither the largest nor the second- 17 largest financial interest in this action. (ECF No. 9-2 at 7 (declaring losses of approximately 18 $133,498.00).) The Court, however, considers the appointment of Bloom Family and Lee 19 as co-lead plaintiffs appropriate in this case based on the adequacy of Bloom Family’s 20 financial interest and the parties’ joint request filed in the interest of avoiding a protracted 21 dispute regarding appointment of lead counsel. (ECF No. 18 at 4; see also ECF No. 25, 22 Leong v. Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-01815-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct 23 14, 2025) (granting a joint motion to appoint co-lead plaintiffs in a securities class action).) 24 All other movants in this action have reported smaller losses than Bloom Family 25 and, separately, have either withdrawn their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff or 26 filed notices in support of the appointment of Bloom Family as lead plaintiff. Movant 27 Morrow reported suffering financial losses of $176,279.53, (ECF No. 4 at 14), but 28 withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 10.) Movant Madewell 1 reported suffering “total LIFO losses of $95,024.54 and $175,383.13 in LIFO losses 2 attributable to just the common stock portion of his investment,” (ECF No. 5 at 11), but 3 withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 13.) Movants Gron and 4 Mwaura reported a combined loss of $192,706.74, (ECF No. 6 at 6), but subsequently filed 5 a Notice of Non-Opposition stating that they do “not have the ‘largest financial interest’ in 6 this litigation within the meaning of the PLSRA” and that “the record reflects that the 7 Bloom Family has suffered the greatest loss.” (ECF No. 17 at 2; see id. (stating that 8 Movants Gron and Mwuara nonetheless “remain[] ready, willing, and able” to serve as co- 9 lead plaintiffs, if the Court determines that Bloom Family is not an appropriate lead 10 plaintiff).) Movant Pease reported suffering a loss of $93,219.10, (ECF No. 7), and 11 withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) Movant Anthony 12 Fairris reported suffering losses of $92,092.00, (ECF No. 9-2 at 7), and Movant Karyn 13 Fairris suffered losses of $13,200.00, id., but both subsequently joined the Moving 14 Plaintiffs in requesting that the Count appoint only Bloom Family and Lee as co-lead 15 plaintiffs. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Plaintiff John King, the filing plaintiff in the King action, has 16 not included sufficient information in his Complaint for the Court to determine whether he 17 has the largest financial interest among potential lead plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1, King v. aTyr 18 Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) Plaintiff John King has also not 19 separately moved for appointment as lead plaintiff nor filed an opposition to other movants’ 20 pending or withdrawn motions. The same is true for Plaintiff Marco Munguia, the filing 21 plaintiff in this action. (ECF No. 1.) 22 3. Rule 23(a) 23 Bloom Family and Lee, as joint movants, have demonstrated that they have the 24 largest financial interest in this action and, accordingly, the Court now considers whether 25 they otherwise satisfy “the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’ 26 and ‘adequacy.’” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Rule 23(a) requires that “the claims 27 or defenses of the [lead plaintiff] are typical of the claims or defenses of the class” and that 28 1 “the [lead plaintiff] will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 23(a). 3 Typicality requires that courts consider “whether other members [of the class] have 4 the same or similar injury [as the lead plaintiff], whether the action is based on conduct 5 which is not unique to the [lead plaintiff], and whether other class members have been 6 injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 7 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). “The purpose of the typicality requirement is to assure 8 that the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class.” Id. Here, 9 Bloom Family and Lee assert claims that are typical of the class because each contends 10 that they purchased aTyr securities during the Class Period and—as a result of Defendants’ 11 alleged false or misleading statements—suffered damages by virtue of aTyr Pharma Inc.’s 12 deflated stock price. (ECF No. 8 at 6; ECF No. 9 at 16–17.) These similarities are sufficient 13 to establish typicality within the meaning of Rule 23(a). See, e.g., Foster v. Maxwell Techs., 14 Inc., 2013 WL 5780424, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013). 15 Adequacy requires that courts consider whether a lead plaintiff has any “conflicts of 16 interest with other class members” and whether counsel for a lead plaintiff will “prosecute 17 the action vigorously on behalf of the class[.]” In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 900 (9th Cir. 18 2021) (quotation omitted). Here, there is no indication that Bloom Family nor Lee has any 19 conflict of interest with other members of the class nor that either is subject to unique 20 defenses. Other movants’ decisions to withdraw their own motions or file a Notice of Non- 21 Opposition in response to the Moving Plaintiffs also suggests that other members of the 22 class are not aware of any conflicts of interests that might impede Bloom Family and Lee 23 from litigating this action on behalf of the class. Bloom Family and Lee have each filed 24 certifications indicating their willingness to serve as a representative party on behalf of the 25 class and declaring that they did not acquire aTyr Pharma Inc. securities at the direction of 26 counsel to participate in this action. (ECF No. 8-3 at 2, 4; ECF No. 9-2 at 19–20.) Bloom 27 Family and Lee have each retained counsel with experience litigating similar securities 28 actions. (ECF No. 8 at 2; ECF No. 8-7.) 1 Accordingly, Bloom Family and Lee satisfy the typicality and adequacy 2 requirements of Rule 23(a). 3 4. Rebuttal Evidence 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court adopts the presumption that Bloom Family and 5 Lee they are the most adequate plaintiffs in this consolidated action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 6 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). This presumption may be rebutted “only upon proof by a member of the 7 purported plaintiff class” that they “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of 8 the class” or are “subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff[s] incapable of 9 adequately representing the class.” Id. at (a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Here, no other party has 10 presented evidence suggesting that Bloom Family and Lee are inadequate representatives 11 of the class. Absent such proof, Bloom Family and Lee are entitled to be appointed as co- 12 lead plaintiffs in this action. See, e.g., Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, 13 Inc., 2014 WL 2604991, at *6. 14 C. Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel 15 “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the district court 16 should generally defer to that choice.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 17 586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). Bloom Family is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol 18 Shapiro LLP, (ECF No. 8 at 2), and previously submitted a resume describing the firm’s 19 extensive experience in securities litigation. (ECF No. 8-7.) Lee is represented by 20 Pomerantz LLP, (ECF No. 9 at 8), and likewise submitted a resume describing the firm’s 21 substantial experience in securities litigation. (ECF No. 9-2 at 50–109.) Based on these 22 firms’ experience in matters similar to this action, the appointment of Hagens Berman 23 Sobol Shapiro LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel is appropriate. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Consolidate Case, Appoint 26 Counsel, and Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs (ECF No. 18) filed by Andrea Holliday Bloom, 27 Joshua Bloom, Insun Lee, Anthony Fairris, and Karyn Fairris is granted in full. The 28 following cases are consolidated for all purposes under 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC (the 1 ||“Consolidated Action’): Munguia v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02681- 2 || WQH-SBC; King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC. The Court 3 || appoints Joshua Bloom, Andrea Holiday Bloom (together, “Bloom Family’’) and Insun Lee 4 || (“Lee”) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The Court appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and 5 Pomerantz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions in this action seeking 7 || consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and appointment of lead counsel that have not 8 || yet been withdrawn are denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9.) 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed in connection with the 10 || Consolidated Action shall be filed under Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC. All 11 ||documents previously filed in the King action shall be deemed a part of the record in the 12 || Consolidated Action. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action 14 bear the following caption: 15 || re aTyr Pharma Inc. Class Lead Case No.: 3:25-cv-0268 1-WQH-SBC 16 Action Securities Litigation 17 18 fp

19 This document relates to: 0 Case No.: 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC 1 Case No.: 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report within 23 || fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Order indicating the date by which they plan to file 24 || an Amended Complaint. 25 26 || Dated: February 9, 2026 BE: eg Ze. Ma a7 Hon, William Q. Hayes 28 United States District Court