Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06416/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

AJAY MALHOTRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONIM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06416-MMC 

ORDER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY 

TO FILE SURREPLY; VACATING 

JANUARY 10, 2020 HEARING

Before the Court are the following motions, each filed December 20, 2019:

(1) Motion "for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel," filed by 

David Sterrett ("Sterrett"); (2) Motion "for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of 

His Selection of Lead Counsel," filed by Lyndon Maither ("Maither"); and (3) Motion "for 

Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel," filed by Ajay Malhotra and 

Andre Ling Bin Zulkifli ("Malhotra/Zulkifli"). Sterrett has filed opposition to Maither's 

motion, to which Maither has replied, and Maither has filed opposition to Sterrett's 

motion, to which Sterrett has replied. Malhotra/Zulkifli have filed a statement of nonopposition to the motions filed by the other movants. Having read and considered the 

papers filed in support of and in response to the above-referenced motions, the Court, as 

set forth below, finds it appropriate to afford Maither a limited opportunity to file a surreply 

in response to new material provided in support of Sterrett's reply.

1

In the instant complaint, Malhotra, on behalf of a putative class, alleges claims 

under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The movants seek appointment as lead 

 

1The hearing scheduled for January 10, 2020, is hereby VACATED.

Case 3:19-cv-06416-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/07/20 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

plaintiff for such class.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a district 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." See 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(i). "The 'most capable' plaintiff – and hence 

the lead plaintiff – is the one who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the 

case, so long as he meets the requirements of Rule 23 [of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure]," see In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002), "in particular, those 

of 'typicality' and 'adequacy,'" see id. at 730 (quoting Rule 23).

Here, it is undisputed that Sterrett has the greatest loss. (See Heikali Decl. Ex. C 

(asserting Sterrett's losses are $43,441.90); Gilmore Decl. Ex. C (asserting Maither's 

losses are between $15,200.39 and $19,951.65).) Additionally, there is no dispute, and 

the Court finds, Sterrett's claims are typical of those of the class members, in that, like 

other putative class members, (1) he purchased shares in defendant Sonim 

Technologies, Inc. ("Sonim") after defendants allegedly made false and misleading 

statements about Sonim's financial picture and (2) he continued to own such shares on 

the date Sonim's share price allegedly fell in response to certain truthful disclosures 

made by defendants. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(holding "representative claims are 'typical' if they are reasonably co-extensive with those 

of absent class members"). 

With respect to adequacy, Sterrett relies on the statements in his "Certification of 

Proposed Lead Plaintiff" filed in support of his motion, and, in particular, on his 

statements therein that he has selected experienced counsel to represent him,2 he did

not purchase the subject securities at the direction of counsel, and he is willing to serve 

as a representative plaintiff and to provide testimony in support of the class claims. (See

 

2According to its resume, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, the firm selected by Sterrett, has 

extensive experience representing plaintiffs in class action securities fraud litigation. 

(See Heikali Decl. Ex. D.)

Case 3:19-cv-06416-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Heikali Decl. Ex. B.) In opposition to Sterrett's motion, Maither argues Sterrett's showing 

nonetheless is deficient in that Sterrett did not provide in his motion "even the most basic 

background information about himself." (See Maither's Opp. at 2:1-2.) Although Sterrett

contends such additional information is not required at this stage of the litigation, he has 

filed in support of his reply a declaration in which he sets forth information about his 

background, which facts, read in connection with the showing made in his motion, appear 

sufficient to show Sterrett would be an adequate representative. As those additional 

facts were not, however, provided prior to the reply, Maither has not had an opportunity to 

respond.

Accordingly, if Maither wishes to file a surreply, limited to three pages in length

exclusive of exhibits, Maither shall file such response no later than January 15, 2020, as 

of which date, unless the parties are otherwise advised, the motions will stand submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06416-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 3