From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jedrzejczyk v. Skillz Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
21-cv-03450-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-03450-RS

08-09-2021

THOMAS JEDRZEJCZYK, Plaintiff, v. SKILLZ INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF

RICHARD SEEBORG, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Originally, seven groups or individuals moved for consolidation of this and another action, Shultz v. Skillz, No. 21-cv-04662, and appointment as Lead Plaintiff: (1) Kevin Mee; (2) Flora and Xiaodong Wu; (3) Kyle Short; (4) Kristine Tonoyan; (5) David Lewis; (6) Joseph Pekala and Andrew Timberlake; and (7) Thomas Jedrzejczyk, Sonny Chung, and Kenny Tinkelman, collectively known as the Skillz Investor Group. Subsequently, Kevin Mee filed a motion of non-opposition, and Kyle Short, Joseph Pekala and Andrew Timberlake, and Kristine Tonoyan withdrew their motions. This left Flora and Xiaodong Wu, David Lewis, and the Skillz Investor Group. Flora and Xiaodong Wu never filed an opposition to David Lewis's or the Skillz Investor Group's motion nor a reply in support of their motion. They also claim a lesser loss than David Lewis. Their motion is therefore denied, leaving only David Lewis and the Skillz Investor Group. On August 6, 2021, David Lewis filed a notice of non-opposition to the Skillz Investor Group's motion, seeking to serve as an additional plaintiff on the amended complaint with his counsel to serve as additional counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Skillz Investor Group's unopposed motion is granted.

The matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

The PSLRA requires courts to consolidate related actions before appointing a Lead Plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii); Alwazzan v. Staar Surgical Co., 2020 WL 7872963, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2020). Consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is appropriate where “actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact.” Shultz and Jedrzejczyk involve common questions of law and fact. They are, indeed, nearly identical. They present the same factual and legal issues forming the same claims for the same class period against the same defendants. The actions are, accordingly, hereby consolidated.

Next, the PSLRA directs courts to appoint the “most adequate plaintiff” to serve as Lead Plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). There exists a rebuttable presumption that the “most adequate plaintiff” is the person or group of persons having the largest financial interest in the relief sought who can otherwise make a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2002). Though the Ninth Circuit has not endorsed a specific method for calculating financial interest, courts apply accounting methods that are “rational and consistently applied.” Cavanaugh, 305 F.3d. at 730 n.4.

The Skillz Investor Group has shown it satisfies all the requirements. First, it has the largest financial interest: its claimed loss of $418, 631.85 is the largest of any movant. The Group also satisfies the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy. The typicality requirement is satisfied when the presumptive Lead Plaintiff and absent class members have suffered the same injuries as a result of the same conduct by the defendants. Hanon v Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). Because all class members, including the members of the Skillz Investor Group, suffered as a result of their purchase of Skillz stock at prices that are alleged to have been artificially inflated, the typicality requirement is satisfied. Rule 23's adequacy requirement contemplates two key questions: (1) Do conflicts exist within the class? and (2) Will plaintiff's counsel vigorously fulfill their duties to the class? Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011). No. conflicts appear to be brewing; indeed, the Skillz Investor Group and David Lewis appear to be committed to working together to the benefit of the class. The Skillz Investor Group is thus appointed Lead Plaintiff. David Lewis is permitted to join as an additional plaintiff in any amended complaint.

Finally, “[t]he most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). In light of the firms' significant experience litigating securities fraud actions, and their routine appointment as Lead Counsel by courts in this district, the Skillz Investor Group's selection of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Counsel and Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP as liaison counsel is approved. David Lewis's selection of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as additional counsel is also approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jedrzejczyk v. Skillz Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
21-cv-03450-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Jedrzejczyk v. Skillz Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS JEDRZEJCZYK, Plaintiff, v. SKILLZ INC., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 9, 2021

Citations

21-cv-03450-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)