Savant v. iRobot Corporation
- Sidney Stein
- 1:25-cv-05563
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Savant v. iRobot, Judge Stein approved co-lead plaintiffs and counsel for the proposed securities class action.
Rita Lazaro, Vinayak Savant, and Sergei Daniel were appointed co-lead plaintiffs for the proposed class; Pomerantz LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP were appointed co-lead counsel. The proposed class and the defendants are affected by the resulting litigation schedule.
What happened
In Vinayak Savant v. iRobot Corporation, et al., Rita Lazaro, Vinayak Savant, and Sergei Daniel sought appointment as lead plaintiffs, and their lawyers sought approval as lead counsel. Viral Jain also filed a motion but later withdrew it. Lazaro, Savant, and Daniel agreed to serve together as co-lead plaintiffs, with their firms serving together as co-lead counsel.
The court independently reviewed the proposed appointments under the federal securities-law requirements, despite the lack of opposition. It found that the motions were timely, that the proposed plaintiffs had significant financial interests, and that they had preliminarily shown they could adequately represent the proposed class. The court also found that the co-lead structure would benefit the proposed class by combining resources and different investment perspectives.
Judge Gary Stein approved the co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel structure and ordered the parties to propose a schedule for an amended or operative complaint and responses to it. The Clerk was asked to close the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Savant v. iRobot Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-05563
- Sidney Stein
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
This putative securities class action was before the court on motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. One motion was filed by Rita Lazaro and named plaintiff Vinayak Savant together, and another was filed by Sergei Daniel. Viral Jain also filed a motion, but later withdrew it.
Lazaro, Savant, and Daniel submitted a stipulation proposing that they serve as co-lead plaintiffs and that Pomerantz LLP and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP serve as co-lead counsel. Although the parties agreed on that structure and no one opposed it, the court stated that it had an independent duty under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to determine whether the proposed appointments were proper.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that each motion was timely. It also found that each proposed lead plaintiff had a significant financial interest in the outcome and that no class member with a larger financial interest had sought appointment. Each movant made a preliminary showing that he or she met the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and was capable of adequately representing the proposed class.
The court determined that the co-lead plaintiff structure was in the best interests of the proposed class. The proposed co-lead plaintiffs represented that the arrangement would allow their lawyers to pool resources and prosecute the case efficiently. They also committed to supervising counsel, coordinating the litigation, and avoiding duplication. The court noted that Daniel’s financial interest was smaller than Lazaro’s, but that Daniel had a more diverse transaction history covering a broader portion of the proposed class period.
The court also found that Pomerantz and Levi & Korsinsky had substantial experience litigating federal securities cases and were qualified to serve as co-lead counsel. The court emphasized that the firms were expected to work together without duplicating services and to maximize recovery for the proposed class.
Ruling
The court approved the proposed co-lead plaintiff structure and ordered the stipulation appointing Lazaro and Savant, together with Daniel, as co-lead plaintiffs. It also ordered the appointment of Pomerantz and Levi & Korsinsky as co-lead counsel.
Under an earlier order issued at the parties’ request, the co-lead plaintiffs and defendants were directed to confer within 14 days and jointly submit a proposed schedule addressing an amended complaint, or identification of an operative complaint, and defendants’ answer or other response. The schedule was also to include briefing for any dispositive motion. The Clerk was respectfully requested to close the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 20, 22, and 27.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.