Roberts v. Bloom Energy Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2021
• Docket: 4:19-cv-02935
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02935-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 128 10 BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Lead Plaintiff James 14 Hunt’s Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 128 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter 15 appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil 16 L.R. 7-1(b). The Court DENIES the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Elissa M. Roberts filed this putative class action. Dkt. No. 1. 19 Three other interested plaintiffs then timely moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, including 20 James Everett Hunt. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 14, 17. After the other two motions were withdrawn, Mr. 21 Hunt was the sole remaining movant. See Dkt. Nos. 21, 37. On September 3, 2019, the Court1 22 granted Mr. Hunt’s unopposed motion and appointed him as the Lead Plaintiff of the putative 23 class and Levi Korsinsky, LLP as Lead Counsel. See Dkt. No. 39. The parties subsequently 24 stipulated to a deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and the briefing schedule 25 for Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 42. The parties’ stipulation did not 26 address the addition of any additional plaintiffs. 27 1 On April 21, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 113 2 (“SAC”). The SAC included six additional named plaintiffs: (1) Juan Rodriguez; (2) Kurt 3 Voutaz; (3) Scott Kline; (4) Joel White; (5) Andrew Austin; and (6) Ryan Fishman. See id. at 4 ¶¶ 8–14. Additionally, the SAC identified Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as “additional 5 counsel for plaintiffs and the class” in the signature block. Id. at 137. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants move to “strike from the Second Amended Complaint references to the six 8 additional plaintiffs and newly-added counsel, none of which has applied for or been appointed by 9 the Court as lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff counsel.” Mot. at 3. Defendants assert that the 10 inclusion of these additional named plaintiffs violated the requirements of the Private Securities 11 Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). Id. at 2. But Defendants fail to cite any authority 12 supporting this claim, and the Court rejects it. 13 Defendants essentially rely on a single district court case, In re Snap Inc. Sec. Litig., 394 14 F.Supp.3d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2019), in support of their contention that “[a] lead plaintiff is not 15 permitted to add other plaintiffs in a representative capacity without court approval.” Id. (citing In 16 re Snap, 394 F.Supp.3d at 1158). In re Snap is not controlling authority, and more importantly, as 17 Plaintiffs point out, that case involved plainly different circumstances. In In re Snap, the question 18 was whether the previously-approved lead plaintiff could withdraw from the litigation, and 19 substitute a replacement lead plaintiff of his (rather than the court’s) choosing. In re Snap, 394 20 F.Supp.3d at 1158 (characterizing effort of lead plaintiff there as “an attempt to circumvent the 21 PSLRA’s Lead Plaintiff appointment process by having the two proposed Named Plaintiffs 22 replace him without a full review under the PSLRA”) (emphasis added). In this case, no 23 replacement is being sought: Mr. Hunt, the approved Lead Plaintiff, remains in that role. And the 24 Court agrees with Plaintiffs that nothing in the PSLRA requires court approval for the addition of 25 additional named plaintiffs by the Lead Plaintiff. See Hevesi v. Citigroup, Inc., 366 F.3d 70, 82– 26 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PSLRA does not in any way prohibit the addition of named 27 plaintiffs to aid the lead plaintiff in representing a class”). Nor does the PSLRA speak to whether 1 control of lead counsel. So Defendants’ motion fails, because the claimed prohibition in the 2 PSLRA on which it relies simply does not exist. 3 To the extent Defendants’ complaint is really that Plaintiffs should have sought leave of 4 court before adding these new plaintiffs and counsel in the SAC, they have a better point. Some 5 of Plaintiffs’ own cited authorities recognize that securities lead plaintiffs often seek leave to 6 amend to add other plaintiffs, consistent with the normal practice for any other type of 7 amendment. See, e.g., Siemers v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:05-cv-04518-WHA, 2006 WL 8 3041090, at *3, *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006); In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03- 9 5138 VRW, 2005 WL 8179740, at *1–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2005). While Defendants stipulated to 10 the filing of the SAC to account for the upcoming release of Bloom Energy’s Form 10-K in March 11 of 2020, they appear to have had no reason to believe that the contemplated amendment would 12 also include new plaintiffs and counsel. See Dkt. No. 112. The better course would have been for 13 Plaintiffs to seek leave to make these additions, as they tacitly recognize is done routinely. 14 That said, the Court declines to strike the challenged additions based on a different 15 rationale than the one Defendants actually advance, because doing so would be a waste of party 16 and judicial resources. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the additions are permissible and 17 consistent with the Lead Plaintiff’s duties. See Bodri v. GoPro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217 (N.D. 18 Cal. Apr. 28, 2016), at *6 (“Being a lead plaintiff is not the same thing as being a class 19 representative, and additional named plaintiffs may be added later to represent subclasses of 20 plaintiffs with distinct interests or claims.”); In re Glob. Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 313 F. Supp. 2d 21 189, 205 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Lead Plaintiffs have a responsibility to identify and include named 22 plaintiffs who have standing to represent the various potential subclasses of plaintiff who may be 23 determined, at the class certification stage, to have distinct interests or claims. By naming 24 additional plaintiffs who, as purchasers of different categories of securities, have standing to bring 25 claims on behalf of the various potential subclasses of securities purchasers, the Lead Plaintiffs in 26 this case have simply exercised that responsibility.”). While Defendants argue that “the new 27 plaintiffs all purport to assert the same claims Hunt asserts on behalf of the same class,” making 1 “[cJonsistent with his obligations, lead plaintiff... has concluded that it would be beneficial to the 2 || interests of the absent class members to add additional named plaintiffs to pursue all available 3 claims and to utilize the assistance of additional counsel.” Opp. at 8. 4 Under the circumstances, sua sponte striking the additions for failure to seek leave would 5 simply generate a motion for leave, which the Court would grant under the liberal standard 6 || governing such motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to 7 amend] when justice so requires.”); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 8 || (9th Cir. 2003) (“This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.”) (quotation omitted). To the 9 extent Defendants believe the inclusion of the new representative plaintiffs poses substantive 10 || concerns, those can be dealt with later on their merits. And to eliminate any potential ambiguity, 11 the Court instructs Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ counsel that to the extent they seek any further 12 amendments to the complaint, they must submit either a motion for leave or a stipulation and 13 proposed order granting leave. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: 3/23/2021 Abspured 5 Mbt) 5 HAYWOOD S, GILLIAM, JR nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28