Hurst
Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 GREGORY A. HURST, Case No. 20-cv-04036-BLF
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO APPOINT
v. LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE
SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL
ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 12, 17] Defendants.
12 Now before the Court are dueling motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. ECF 12, 17. Based on the reasons discussed at the October 15, 2020 motion hearing and further explained below, the Court GRANTS Gregory Hurst’s motion and 16 DENIES Harish Varma Patchametla and Renuka Indukuri’s motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Gregory Hurst filed a securities class action suit in this Court alleging violations of various securities laws against Enphase Energy, Inc. (“Enphase”), Enphase 21 CEO Badrinarayanan Kothandaraman, and Enphase CFO Eric Branderiz (collectively, 22 “Defendants”). Compl., ECF 1. The complaint alleges that between…