Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-02778
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc., Judge Chesney appointed Charles Grubb lead plaintiff, approved his counsel, deemed another motion withdrawn, and vacated the hearing.
Charles Grubb was appointed lead plaintiff, and The Rosen Law Firm was approved as lead counsel for the proposed class. Mandar Pattekar's appointment motion was deemed withdrawn. The order governs representation and management of the proposed class action but does not decide the merits of the claims against AXT, Inc. or the other defendants.
What happened
In Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc., Charles Grubb asked to be appointed lead plaintiff in a proposed class action asserting Securities Act claims. Mandar Pattekar was the only other person who had initially sought that appointment, but filed a statement saying he did not oppose Grubb's motion.
The court found that Grubb had shown a financial loss from the defendants' alleged violations and therefore had the greatest financial stake among the proposed class members. The court also found that he met the requirements for adequately and typically representing the class.
The court granted Grubb's motion, appointed him lead plaintiff, and approved The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. It deemed Pattekar's motion withdrawn and vacated the scheduled hearing. Judge Maxine Chesney signed the order.
The detailed version
- Nowakowski v. AXT, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-02778
- Maxine Chesney
- July 26, 2024
Background
The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1934. Charles Grubb moved to be appointed lead plaintiff and to have The Rosen Law Firm approved as counsel. No opposition was filed. Mandar Pattekar, the other potential lead plaintiff who had initially sought appointment, filed a statement of non-opposition; the court deemed Pattekar's motion withdrawn.
Legal standard
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the court must appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the proposed class who are most capable of adequately representing the class. The court explained that the person with the greatest financial stake is generally the most capable, provided that person meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including typicality and adequacy. Typicality concerns whether the representative's claims are sufficiently like those of the class, and adequacy concerns whether the representative can fairly protect the class's interests.
Court's ruling
The court found that Grubb was the only proposed class member seeking appointment and had submitted evidence showing a financial loss resulting from the defendants' alleged violations. The court therefore found that he had the greatest financial stake and met Rule 23's requirements.
The court granted Grubb's motion and appointed him lead plaintiff for the proposed class. It also approved The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. The firm was given responsibility for the litigation's overall conduct on behalf of Grubb and the proposed class, including presenting their positions, entering necessary stipulations, coordinating discovery, hiring experts and consultants, conducting settlement negotiations, monitoring litigation activities, and performing related duties.
The court vacated the hearing scheduled for August 9, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.