Hurst

Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 30, 20205:20-cv-04036California5,638 words

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…

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.