1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Shaji NELSON, individually and on Case No.: 25-cv-0499-AGS-AHG 4 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING ORTIZ’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

5 Plaintiff,

APPOINT COUNSEL AND LEAD

6 v. PLAINTIFF (ECF 14) AND DENYING

COMPETING MOTIONS (ECF 13 &

7 MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES 15) 8 HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 In this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act case, several individuals have moved 12 for appointment as lead plaintiff along with appointment of lead counsel of their choosing. 13 (See ECF 13, 14, 15.) Under the statute, the lead role presumptively goes to the would-be 14 plaintiff with “the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.” In re 15 Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)). 16 Here, after each movant set out their financial stake, one of the would-be plaintiffs 17 withdrew his request to be appointed and all the others acknowledge that they do not have 18 the largest financial interest, leaving only would-be plaintiff Erwin Ortiz. (See ECF 19, at 2 19 (“Nelson does not have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class as 20 required by the PSLRA. As such, Nelson hereby withdraws his Motion.”); ECF 18, at 2 21 (Thakrar: “it appears that Movant does not have the largest financial interest in this 22 litigation”); ECF 17, at 2 (Bouscher: “Based upon a review of the competing motions and 23 supporting papers provided by the other movants seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, it 24 appears that, while Movant is well-qualified to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action, he 25 does not possess the ‘largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class’ as required 26 by the PSLRA.”).) Based on Ortiz’s unopposed filing, he has both the largest financial 27 stake and makes a prima facie showing that his claims are typical of the class and that he 28 would be an adequate representative. As such: 1 1. Erwin Ortiz’s motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff is GRANTED. The Clerk 2 must update the docket to reflect Ortiz as lead plaintiff. 3 2. Ortiz’s counsel, Jacob Allen Walker, is APPOINTED lead class counsel. See 15 4 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the 5 approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.”’). The Clerk 6 must update the docket to reflect Walker’s appointment, as well. 7 3. The June 6, 2025 hearing on this matter is VACATED. 8 || Dated: May 30, 2025

10 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28