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

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

Adam, C. McCall (SBN 302130)

445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Tel: (213) 985-7290 

Email: amccall@zlk.com

NICHOLAS I. PORRITT

ADAM M. APTON 

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115

Washington, DC 20007

Tel: (202) 524-4290

Fax: (202) 333-2121

Email: nporritt@zlk.com

Email: aapton@zlk.com

Attorneys for Movant Kalpesh Patel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL

EMPLOYEES’ & SANITATION

EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT TRUST, on

behalf of itself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff

v.

RH, INC., GARY FRIEDMAN, KAREN

BOONE

Defendants.

No. 4:17-cv-00554-YGR

Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

MOTION OF KALPESH PATEL FOR 

CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT 

AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND 

APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL; 

MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF 

AUTHORITIES

Date: May 10, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom: Courtroom 1 - 4th Floor

PETER J. ERRICHIELLO, JR., Individually

and on Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RH, GARY G. FRIEDMAN, and KAREN

BOONE,

Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-01425-WHO

Hon. William H. Orrick

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

ii

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

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on May 10, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon as counsel may be 

heard, the undersigned will move before the Honorable Gonzalez Rogers, at the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 1 - 4th Floor

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, for an Order:

1. Consolidating the above-captioned related actions;

2. Appointing Kalpesh Patel (“Movant”) as Lead Plaintiff;

3. Approving Movant’s choice of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (“Levi & Korsinsky”), as 

Lead Counsel; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Movant respectfully submit the following memorandum in support of his motion for: (a)

consolidation of the above-captioned actions, (b) appointment of Movant as Lead Plaintiff, and (c) 

approval of Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel.

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 2 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

iii

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................ iv

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................................................................... 1

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED................................................................ 2

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................ 2

IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 3

A. The Actions Should Be Consolidated............................................................................. 3

B. The Court Should Appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff .................................................... 4

1. The Procedure Required by the PSLRA............................................................. 4

a. Movant is Willing to Serve as Class Representative ............................ 5

b. Movant Has the Requisite Financial Interest in the Relief Sought by 

the Class................................................................................................ 5

2. Movant Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure............................................................................................................ 6

a. Movant’s Claims are Typical of the Claims of all the Class Members 7

b. Movant Will Adequately Represent the Class...................................... 8

C. Movant’s Choice of Counsel Should Be Approved ....................................................... 8

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 9

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 3 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

iv

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Booth v. Strategic Realty Trust, Inc., 

No. 13-cv-04921-JST, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10501 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014) ..................... 6

In re Cavanaugh, 

306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002).............................................................................................. 1, 6, 7

Crawford v. Honig, 

37 F.3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994)........................................................................................................ 9

In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp.,

960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992)............................................................................ 8Ferrari v. Gisch, 

225 F.R.D. 599 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................... 8

Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon,

457 U.S. 147 (1982)................................................................................................................... 8

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 8

Haung v. Acterna Corp., 

220 F.R.D. 255 (D. Md. 2004)................................................................................................... 7

Johnson v. Celotex Corp.,

899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990)................................................................................................ 4, 5

In re Milestone Sci. Sec. Litig., 

183 F.R.D. 404 (D.N.J. 1998).................................................................................................... 7

In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig.,

182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ................................................................................................. 8

Mitchell v. Complete Mgmt., Inc., No. 99-CV-1454 (DAB), 1999 WL 728678 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 

17, 1999) .................................................................................................................................... 4

Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 

173 F.R.D. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................... 4

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 4 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

v

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

Robidoux v. Celani,

987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993)....................................................................................................... 8

Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 

67 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1999).................................................................................... 4, 7

Weiss v. York Hosp.,

745 F.2d 786 (3d Cir. 1984)....................................................................................................... 8

Weisz v. Calpine Corp., 

No. 4:02-CV-1200, 2002 WL 32818827 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2002) ........................................ 4

Weltz v. Lee, 

199 F.R.D. 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ............................................................................................... 4

Statutes

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A) ........................................................................................................... 5

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)................................................................................................... passim

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).............................................................................................................. 2, 8, 9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)...................................................................................................................... 5

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 5 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

1

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

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Presently pending before the Court are two related securities class action lawsuits (the 

“Actions”) brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities

of RH (“RH” or the “Company”) between March 26, 2015 and June 8, 2016, inclusive (the 

“Class Period”).1 Plaintiffs in the Actions allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors.

2

 

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended (the “PSLRA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), provides for the Court to appoint as lead plaintiff the movant that has 

the largest financial interest in the litigation and has made a prima facie showing that he, she, or 

it is an adequate class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 

generally In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002). Kalpesh Patel (“Movant”) lost 

approximately $27,403.61 as a result of the alleged fraud during the Class Period.

3

 Moreover, 

Movant satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that his

claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and he will fairly and adequately represent the 

interests of the Class.4 As such, Movant meets the requirements of the PSLRA for appointment 

as Lead Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Movant respectfully requests that (a) the Actions be consolidated; (b) he be 

appointed Lead Plaintiff; and (c) Levi & Korsinsky be approved as Lead Counsel. 

 1

 The two actions are entitled City of Miami v. RH, et al., 4:17-cv-00554-YGR (“City of Miami

Action”), and Errichiello v. RH., et al., 3:17-cv-01425-WHO (“Errichiello Action). 

2 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and 

rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against defendants Gary G. Friedman (“Friedman”) (RH’s 

Chief Executive Officer and Chairman) and Karen Boone (“Boone”) (RH’s Chief Financial and 

Administrative Officer), collectively referred to as the “Individual Defendants.” 

3 Movant’s certification identifying his transactions in RH, as required by the PSLRA, as well as 

a chart identifying his losses, are attached collectively to the Declaration of Adam C. McCall, 

dated April 3, 2017 (“McCall Decl.”), as Exhibits A and B, respectively. 

4 The “Class” is comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities during 

the Class Period.

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 6 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

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

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

1. Whether the Actions involve substantially similar issues of fact and law and 

should be consolidated;

2. Whether Movant meets the requirements under the PSLRA to be appointed Lead 

Plaintiff; and

3. Whether Movant’s choice of Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel should be 

approved.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

RH is a luxury retailer in the home furnishing marketplace. ¶ 2.

5

 The Company

operates an integrated business with multiple channels of distribution including over 70 retail 

stores in the United States, source book magazines and websites. Id. 

On December 10, 2015, the Company proclaimed it had missed its earnings projections

due, in part, to the fact that RH Modern furniture was not fully in-stock. ¶ 8. With this news, 

RH’s share price fell $8.94 or 10.20% over two trading days, to close at $78.65 on December 

14, 2015. Id. To stem the decline, the Company made a number of reassuring statements, 

including touting the launch of RH Modern as “phenomenal” and falsely ascribing the low 

inventory of RH Modern products to a purported strategy of conservatively managing purchases 

for the new product line. Id. 

On February 24, 2016, the Company publicized disappointing earnings for the fourth

quarter of 2015 due to shipping delays of the RH Modern furniture. ¶ 10. With this news, RH’s 

share fell $13.43, or 25.86%, to close at $38.49 on February 25, 2016. Id. In an effort to 

alleviate the market reaction, the Company continued to tout RH Modern as a success and 

assured investors that the RH Modern inventory problems were behind them. Id.

On June 8, 2016, RH publicized the Company’s financial and operating results for the

 5 Citations to “¶ __” are to paragraphs of the Class Action Complaint For Violations of the 

Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) filed in the City of Miami Action. The facts set forth 

in the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 7 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

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

first quarter of 2016 and significantly reduced its earnings guidance for fiscal year 2016, 

attributing “accommodations largely due to . . . production delays” in RH’s new product line, 

RH Modern, which the Company had previously touted as “the most important and significant 

new home furnishings business to be launched in the last 15 or 20 years.” ¶ 11. With this news, 

RH’s share price fell $7.66, or 21.24%, to close at $28.41 on June 9, 2016. Id.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Actions Should Be Consolidated

The PSLRA provides that “[i]f more than one action on behalf of a class asserting 

substantially the same claim or claims arising under this [sub-]chapter has been filed,” the Court 

shall not make the determination of the most adequate plaintiff until “after the decision on the 

motion to consolidate is rendered.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii). Thereafter, the Court “shall 

appoint the most adequate plaintiff for the consolidated actions.” Id. 

Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consolidation is appropriate 

when the actions involve common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Takeda v. 

Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1132-33 (C.D. Cal. 1999); see also Weltz v. Lee, 

199 F.R.D. 129, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“[C]ourts have taken the view that considerations of 

judicial economy favor consolidation.” (quoting Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 

1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990)). Consolidation is particularly appropriate in securities class action 

litigation. See Mitchell v. Complete Mgmt., Inc., No. 99-cv-1454, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

14460, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 1999) (“In securities actions where the complaints are based on 

the same ‘public statements and reports’ consolidation is appropriate if there are common 

questions of law and fact . . . .”) (citation omitted); Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 173 

F.R.D. 115, 129 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Courts, therefore, routinely find that consolidating multiple 

securities cases is an efficient solution where the complaints arise generally from the same 

alleged false and misleading statements. See, e.g., Weisz v. Calpine Corp., No. 02-cv-1200, 

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27831, *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2002); Takeda, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 1132-

33 (consolidation appropriate in securities class actions). 

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 8 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

4

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

The Actions pending before this Court present similar factual and legal issues, as they 

both involve the same subject matter and are based on the same wrongful course of conduct. 

Each names RH and certain of its officers and/or directors as defendants. Because the Actions 

arise from the same facts and circumstances and involve the same subject matter, the same 

discovery and similar class certification issues will be relevant to all related actions.

Accordingly, consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate. See Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d at 

1285. 

B. The Court Should Appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff

1. The Procedure Required by the PSLRA

Once the Court decides whether to consolidate the motions, the PSLRA mandates that 

the Court decide the lead plaintiff issue “[a]s soon as practicable.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(B)(ii). The PSLRA establishes the procedure for appointment of the lead plaintiff in 

“each private action arising under [the Exchange Act] that is brought as a plaintiff class action 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a) and (a)(3)(B). 

The plaintiff who files the initial action must publish notice to the class within 20 days 

after filing the action, informing class members of their right to file a motion for appointment of 

lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A). The PSLRA requires the Court to consider within 

90 days all motions filed within 60 days after publication of that notice by any person or group 

of persons who are members of the proposed class to be appointed lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. §§ 

78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) and (a)(3)(B)(i).

The PSLRA provides a presumption that the most “adequate plaintiff” to serve as lead 

plaintiff is the “person or group of persons” that:

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

notice;

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

in the relief sought by the class; and

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

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 9 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

5

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The presumption may be rebutted only upon proof by a class 

member that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately protect 

the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of 

adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

As set forth below, Movant satisfies the foregoing criteria and is not aware of any 

unique defenses that the defendants could raise against him. Therefore, Movant is entitled to 

the presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff to represent the Class and, as a result, 

should be appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Action.

a. Movant is Willing to Serve as Class Representative

On February 2, 2017, counsel in the first-filed action caused a notice (the “Notice”) to be 

published pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act, which announced that a 

securities class action had been filed against RH and the Individual Defendants, and which 

advised putative class members that they had 60 days to file a motion to seek appointment as a 

lead plaintiff in the action.8 

Movant has reviewed a complaint filed in the pending Actions and has timely filed his

motion pursuant to the Notice.

b. Movant Has the Requisite Financial Interest in the 

Relief Sought by the Class

The Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the movant or movants with the largest financial 

loss in the relief sought by the action. As demonstrated herein, Movant has the largest known 

financial interest in the relief sought by the Class. See McCall Decl., Ex. B. The movant who 

has the largest financial interest in this litigation and meets the adequacy and typicality 

requirements of Rule 23 is presumptively the lead plaintiff. Booth v. Strategic Realty Trust, 

 8 The first-filed action, the Bristow Action was filed in this Court on February 2, 2017. On that 

same day, the Notice was published over PR Newswire a widely-circulated national businessoriented wire service. A copy of the Notice is attached as Exhibit C to the McCall Decl.

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 10 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

6

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

Inc., No. 13-cv-04921-JST, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10501, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014)

(citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 726-30).

Within the Class Period, Movant purchased RH shares in reliance upon the materially 

false and misleading statements issued by the defendants, and was injured thereby. Movant

suffered a substantial loss of approximately $27,403.61. See McCall Decl., Ex. B. Movant thus 

has a significant financial interest in the outcome of this case. To the best of his knowledge, 

there are no other applicants who have sought, or are seeking, appointment as lead plaintiff that 

have a larger financial interest and also satisfy Rule 23. 

2. Movant Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

According to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B), in addition to possessing the largest financial 

interest in the outcome of the litigation, the lead plaintiff must also “otherwise satisf[y] the 

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rule 23(a) provides that a 

party may serve as a class representative if the following four requirements are satisfied:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there 

are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the 

representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the 

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

Of the four prerequisites to class certification outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, only two –

typicality and adequacy – are recognized as appropriate for consideration at this stage. See 

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730, n.5, 732. Furthermore, only a “preliminary showing” of typicality 

and adequacy is required at this stage. See Takeda, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 1136. Consequently, in 

deciding a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff, the Court should limit its inquiry to the typicality

and adequacy prongs of Rule 23(a), and defer examination of the remaining requirements until 

the Lead Plaintiff moves for class certification. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732; see also 

Haung v. Acterna Corp., 220 F.R.D. 255, 259 (D. Md. 2004); In re Milestone Sci. Sec. Litig., 

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 11 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

7

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

183 F.R.D. 404, 414 (D.N.J. 1998).

As detailed below, Movant satisfies both the typicality and adequacy requirements of 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, thereby justifying his appointment as Lead Plaintiff. 

a. Movant’s Claims are Typical of the Claims of all the 

Class Members

Under Rule 23(a)(3), typicality exists where “the claims . . . of the representative 

parties” are “typical of the claims . . . of the class.” Movant plainly meets the typicality 

requirement of Rule 23 because: (i) he suffered the same injuries as the absent class members; 

(ii) he suffered as a result of the same course of conduct by Defendants; and (iii) his claims are 

based on the same legal issues. See Ferrari v. Gisch, 225 F.R.D. 599, 607 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see 

also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998); Robidoux v. Celani, 987 

F.2d 931, 936-37 (2d Cir. 1993); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 50 

(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (typicality inquiry analyzes whether plaintiffs’ claims “arise from the same 

conduct from which the other class members’ claims and injuries arise”). Rule 23 does not 

require that the named plaintiff be identically situated with all class members. It is enough if 

their situations share a common issue of law or fact. See Weiss v. York Hosp., 745 F.2d 786, 

808-09 (3d Cir. 1984). A finding of commonality frequently supports a finding of typicality. 

See Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158 n.13 (1982) (noting that the 

typicality and commonality requirements tend to merge). 

In this case, the typicality requirement is met because Movant’s claims are identical to, 

and neither compete nor conflict with the claims of the other Class members. Movant, like the 

other members of the Class, acquired RH securities during the Class Period at prices artificially 

inflated by the defendants’ materially false and misleading statements, and were damaged 

thereby. Thus, his claims are typical, if not identical, to those of the other members of the Class 

because Movant suffered losses similar to those of other Class members and his losses result 

from the defendants’ common course of wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Movant satisfies the 

typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). See Weiss, 745 F.2d at 809; see also In re Drexel 

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 12 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

8

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

Burnham Lambert Group, 960 F.2d 285, 291 (2d Cir. 1992).

b. Movant Will Adequately Represent the Class

Moreover, Movant is an adequate representative for the Class. Under Rule 23(a)(4), the 

representative party must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The PSLRA 

directs the Court to limit its inquiry regarding the adequacy of the movant to whether the 

interests of the movant are clearly aligned with the members of the putative Class and whether 

there is evidence of any antagonism between the interests of the movant and other members of 

the Class. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B); see Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citation omitted). 

Movant’s interests are clearly aligned with those of the other members of the Class. Not 

only is there no evidence of antagonism between Movant’s interests and those of the Class, but

Movant has a significant and compelling interest in prosecuting the Actions based on the large 

financial losses he has suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged in the Actions. This 

motivation, combined with Movant’s identical interest with the members of the Class, 

demonstrates that Movant will vigorously pursue the interests of the Class. In addition, Movant 

has retained counsel highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions, and will submit 

his choice to the Court for approval pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Therefore, 

Movant will prosecute the Actions vigorously on behalf of the Class. 

Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, Movant has made the preliminary showing 

necessary to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 and, therefore, satisfies 

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). In addition, because Movant has sustained the largest 

amount of losses from the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing, he is, therefore, the presumptive 

lead plaintiff in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(3)(B)(iii)(I) and should be appointed as such 

to lead the Action.

C. Movant’s Choice of Counsel Should Be Approved

The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject 

to Court approval. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). The Court should interfere with the lead 

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 13 of 14
KALPESH PATEL’S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL

Nos. 4:17-cv-00554, and 3:17-cv-01425

9

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

plaintiff’s selection of counsel only when necessary “to protect the interests of the class.” 15 

U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa).

Movant has selected and retained Levi & Korsinsky as the proposed Lead Counsel for 

the Class. The members of Levi & Korsinsky have extensive experience in successfully 

prosecuting complex securities class actions such as these, and are well-qualified to represent 

the Class. See McCall Decl., Ex. D (the firm resume of Levi & Korsinsky).

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that this Court: (1) consolidate 

the Actions; (2) appoint Movant as Lead Plaintiff for the Class in the Action; and (3) approve 

Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel for the Class.

Dated: April 3, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

/s/ Adam C. McCall__________

Adam C. McCall

445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Tel: (213) 985-7290

Email: amccall@zlk.com

Nicholas I. Porritt

Adam M. Apton

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115

Washington, DC 20007

Tel: (202) 524-4290

Fax: (202) 333-2121

(pro hac vice to submitted)

Attorneys for Movant Kalpesh Patel and 

Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 7 Filed 04/03/17 Page 14 of 14