Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07361/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07361-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES REIDINGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZENDESK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06968-CRB 

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, 

APPOINTING LOCAL 353, I.B.E.W. 

PENSION FUND LEAD PLAINTIFF, 

AND APPROVING PLAINTIFF'S 

CHOICE OF LEAD COUNSEL

Two putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed against Zendesk, Inc.: 

Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB, and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:19-

cv-07361-WHA. Because these actions present virtually identical questions of law and 

fact, the unopposed motion to consolidate them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 42(a) is granted.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act provides that the Court “shall appoint 

as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court 

determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.” 

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(I). The Act creates a rebuttable presumption as to who is the 

most adequate plaintiff:

Subject to subclause (II), for purposes of clause (I), the court 

shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff in any 

private action arising under this chapter is the person or group 

of persons that—

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response 

to a notice under subparagraph (A)(I);

(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial 

interest in the relief sought by the class; and

Case 3:19-cv-06968-CRB Document 42 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:19-cv-07361-CRB Document 15 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). 

This presumption “may be rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported 

plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff -- (aa) will not fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class; or (bb) is subject to unique defenses that 

render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” Id. § 78u4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)–(bb).

Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund (“the Pension Fund”) meets all of the Act’s 

requirements. It submitted a timely motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. See Mot. 

More importantly, it is undisputed that the Pension Fund has the largest financial interest 

in this case. See Pension Fund’s Opp’n to Competing Motions (dkt. 40) at 2–3; Snyder 

Notice of Withdrawal (dkt. 39) at 2; Ho Notice of Non-Opposition (dkt. 38) at 3; 

Armstrong Notice of Non-Opposition (dkt. 37) at 2. And the Pension Fund satisfies the

other requirements of Rule 23, because its claims are typical of the class and it will fairly 

and adequately represent the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)–(4). The Pension Fund’s 

motion for appointment as lead counsel is now unopposed, so the presumption that it is the 

most adequate plaintiff is unrebutted. See Notice of Unopposed Motion (dkt. 41). The 

Pension Fund’s motion to be appointed as lead counsel is granted.

The Pension Fund’s choice of Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead 

counsel is approved. As this Court has previously found, Robbins Gellar has ample 

experience prosecuting complex securities class action lawsuits and will adequately 

represent the interests of the class. See Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corp., 

No. 3:18-cv-06525-CRB, ECF No. 40 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019).

The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and therefore vacates the hearing currently set for Friday, 

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-06968-CRB Document 42 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:19-cv-07361-CRB Document 15 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:19-cv-06968-CRB Document 42 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:19-cv-07361-CRB Document 15 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3