1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HAMZA ELKHODARI, individually and on Case No. 25-cv-06923-JD behalf of all others similarly situated, 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE LEAD PLAINTIFF AND 9 LEAD COUNSEL v. 10 UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., et 11 al., Defendants. 12

13 This putative shareholder class action alleges securities fraud claims against defendant 14 Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. and its officers. Dkt. No. 1. Two shareholders initially asked to be 15 appointed lead plaintiff, Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, but one withdrew, Dkt. No. 22. Andrew Coleman is the 16 only applicant to be lead plaintiff, without opposition by any party. Coleman’s motion is suitable 17 for decision without oral argument, and the hearing set for November 20, 2025, is vacated. 18 Coleman is appointed lead plaintiff. The proposed appointment of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel 19 is deferred pending further order. 20

I. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF

21 The Court has discussed in other orders the three-step process for appointing a lead 22 plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B). 23 See Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., No. 24-cv-04249-JD, 2025 WL 986469 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 24 2025); In re Stitch Fix, Inc. Sec. Litig., 393 F. Supp. 3d. 833 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The first step is for 25 the plaintiff in the first-filed action to “publiciz[e] the pendency of the action, the claims made and 26 the purported class period” in “a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire 27 service.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. 1 § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)). “The notice must also state that ‘any member of the purported class may 2 move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.’” Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II)). This 3 step was properly completed. See Dkt. No. 6 (notice of publication). 4 In the next two steps, the Court considers “potential lead plaintiffs one at a time, starting 5 with the one who has the greatest financial interest, and continuing in descending order if and only 6 if the presumptive lead plaintiff is found inadequate or atypical.” Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732. In 7 step two, the Court determines presumptive lead plaintiff status relying on the “presumptive lead 8 plaintiff’s complaint and sworn certification.” Id. at 730. In step three, the other plaintiffs have 9 “an opportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing” by “present[ing] evidence that 10 disputes the lead plaintiff’s prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy.” Id. 11 The record indicates, without dispute by other parties, that Coleman has the largest 12 financial interest. See Dkt. No. 14-3. Coleman has made a prima facie showing of typicality and 13 adequacy. See Dkt. No. 14 at 7-9; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Consequently, Coleman is appointed 14 lead plaintiff. 15 II. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL 16 Under the PSLRA, the Court will also appoint lead counsel. See 15 U.S.C. 17 § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) (“The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select 18 and retain counsel to represent the class.”). The “selection of counsel is an ‘important client 19 prerogative’” entrusted in the first instance to the lead plaintiff. Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. 20 Dist. of Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 711-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 734). The 21 Court will “generally defer” to the lead plaintiff’s choice of attorneys when it is reasonable. Id. 22 (internal citation omitted). Coleman has selected Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. Dkt. No. 14 23 at 11. Coleman says he “is also represented by The Schall Law Firm in this Action,” but does not 24 ask to have Schall appointed as lead counsel. Id. at 9. 25 The selection of Pomerantz LLP causes concern. In another securities class action before 26 the Court, Pomerantz LLP turned in a subpar performance that raised serious doubts about the 27 adequacy of its legal work and its ability to protect the interests of the class it represented. See In 1 July 21, 2022). The work was so poor that the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why 2 || Pomerantz LLP should not face professional misconduct sanctions, up to and including suspension 3 from practice within this District. Jd. at *1-2. Pomerantz LLP’s response did not assuage the 4 Court’s concerns. See Case No. 3:16-cv-06633-JD, Dkt. No. 138. Even so, the Court dropped the 5 OSC mainly because Pomerantz LLP volunteered to forego any award of attorney’s fees in the 6 || case. Id. 7 This is not a record that provides assurances that Pomerantz LLP will adequately protect 8 || and represent the shareholder class here. Pomerantz LLP exacerbated the problem by offering 9 || bromides to the effect that it is a “premier firm” which provides “the best legal representation 10 available,” Dkt. No. 14 at 11, without acknowledging its dereliction of duties in In re TerraVia 11 Holdings. 12 In these circumstances, the Court declines to appoint Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel at 13 this time. If lead plaintiff Coleman elects, Pomerantz LLP may file by December 15, 2025, a 14 statement explaining how it will avoid repeating the deficiencies detailed in the OSC, which the 3 15 Court will consider in determining whether to appoint it as counsel. In the alternative, Coleman 16 || may select a different law firm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: November 17, 2025 19 20

JAMES#PONATO

21 United ftates District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28