Drieu

Drieu v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 20203:20-cv-02353California1,882 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN RE ZOOM SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 20-cv-02353-JD

ORDER RE LEAD PLAINTIFF AND

LEAD COUNSEL Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 34, 38

12 This is a consolidated shareholder class action alleging securities fraud by Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom”) and its officers. See Dkt. No. 24. Three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel have been filed. Dkt. Nos. 28, 34, 38.1 I. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF The Court has discussed in other orders the three-step process for appointing a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B). See In re Stitch Fix, Inc. Securities Litigation, 393 F. Supp. 3d. 833 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The first step is for the plaintiff in the first-filed action to “publiciz[e] the pendency of the action, the claims made and the purported class period” in “a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.