{"cached_at":"2026-10-27T09:50:43.696372+00:00","cl_docket_id":"66718675","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","id":66718675,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ord/","court_id":"ord","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9497/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-01-12T13:24:35.750514-08:00","date_modified":"2026-06-22T04:01:42.863350-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jolie A. Russo","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-07-25T10:34:15.013867-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-01-12","date_terminated":"2023-06-29","date_last_filing":"2023-06-29","case_name_short":"Wakefield","case_name":"Wakefield v. Ess Tech Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc","docket_number":"3:23-cv-00050","docket_number_core":"2300050","docket_number_raw":"3:23-cv-00050","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JR","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"171193","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-01-12T13:24:35.748080-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13078369/","id":13078369,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8170221/","attorney_id":8170221,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.603367-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.603375-07:00","name":"Darren Sturgis","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13078368/","id":13078368,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769837/","attorney_id":8769837,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769838/","attorney_id":8769838,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"(Lead Plaintiff)","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.297186-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.297194-07:00","name":"Maurice A Rendon","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13078367/","id":13078367,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769836/","attorney_id":8769836,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.264055-07:00","date_modified":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.264063-07:00","name":"Michael Budukiewicz","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12245336/","id":12245336,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769841/","attorney_id":8769841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769842/","attorney_id":8769842,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.952332-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.952342-08:00","name":"Amir Moftakhar","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12245335/","id":12245335,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769841/","attorney_id":8769841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769842/","attorney_id":8769842,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.944901-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.944921-08:00","name":"Eric P. Dresselhuys","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12245334/","id":12245334,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769839/","attorney_id":8769839,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769840/","attorney_id":8769840,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769841/","attorney_id":8769841,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8769842/","attorney_id":8769842,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.934436-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.934447-08:00","name":"Ess Tech Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/12245333/","id":12245333,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8227196/","attorney_id":8227196,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8227196/","attorney_id":8227196,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8227196/","attorney_id":8227196,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8170221/","attorney_id":8170221,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","docket_id":66718675,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.904963-08:00","date_modified":"2023-01-18T07:13:51.904976-08:00","name":"James Wakefield","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131374/","id":368131374,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459748/","id":375459748,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/28/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.108524-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.381904-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:06.095383-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.374085-08:00","date_filed":"2023-05-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-08.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo: Granting the parties' Stipulated Motion for Order Setting a Schedule for the Filing of a Consolidated Complaint and Responsive Briefing (27 in case 3:23-cv-00050-JR; 22 in case 3:23-cv-00234-JR) as follows: Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated complaint no later than 6/30/2023. Defendants shall file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, if any, no later than 8/29/2023. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than 10/13/2023. Defendants shall file their reply to any opposition no later than 11/13/2023. Further case management deadlines will be addressed as needed following final ruling on any motion to dismiss. (Associated Cases: 3:23-cv-00050-JR, 3:23-cv-00234-JR) (gm) (Entered: 05/08/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131373/","id":368131373,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459747/","id":375459747,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/21/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.896500-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.230386-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.881061-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.223140-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-20.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo: Granting the parties' Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time 19 as follows and as modified: No answer, motion, or other response to the Complaint will be due until after a Lead Plaintiff is appointed, Lead Counsel is approved, and Lead Plaintiff has had the opportunity to prepare or designate a post-appointment consolidated complaint. Defendants shall not waive any rights, arguments, or defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint pursuant to this Stipulation. Promptly after or within fourteen (14) days of the Court's order for the appointment of Lead Plaintiff and approval of Lead Counsel, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. All discovery related deadlines are Stayed until after a ruling on the Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. (gm) (Entered: 03/20/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131372/","id":368131372,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459746/","id":375459746,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/20/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.867930-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.216470-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.853855-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.205962-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo: Setting Plaintiffs'/Movant Darren Sturgis' Motions for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Counsel 13, 15 & 17 on the under advisement calendar of 4/17/2023. Any requests for oral argument will be considered in due course. Should the Court deem the motions appropriate for disposition with oral argument upon review of the briefings, the motions will be scheduled accordingly. (gm) Modified on 3/20/2023 to correct docket text. NEF regenerated to the parties. (gm) (Entered: 03/20/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131371/","id":368131371,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459745/","id":375459745,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/11/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.639579-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.037905-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.625011-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.030637-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-09.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo: Granting Defendants' Applications/Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice 9 & 10 as to Attorneys Ignacio Salceda and John Roberts respectively. (gm) (Entered: 03/09/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131370/","id":368131370,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459744/","id":375459744,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.609815-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.024687-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.600015-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.016540-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Clerk's Review of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney John Roberts. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8846824 10 : Reviewed and Ready for Ruling. (ecp)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/368131369/","id":368131369,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/375459743/","id":375459743,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.589658-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.006996-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-10-16T22:47:05.580805-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:49.993608-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Clerk's Review of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Ignacio Salceda. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8846813 9 : Reviewed and Ready for Ruling. (ecp)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/347888437/","id":347888437,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/354319647/","id":354319647,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/30/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-06-29T15:27:57.938894-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-26T10:45:29.048679-08:00","sha1":"6ab63228eb36b136d009e53b1b4300819c7b9f68","page_count":2,"file_size":103682,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.30.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.30.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 30      Filed 06/29/23    Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                                    DISTRICT OF OREGON\n\n JAMES WAKEFIELD, Individually and on              Case No. 3:23-cv-00050-JR (Lead Case)\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n                                                   ORDER OF DISMISSAL\n                                Plaintiff,\n\n                        v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n MICHAEL BUDUKIEWICZ, Individually                 Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-JR (Trailing Case)\n and on behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n                                Plaintiff,\n\n                        v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n\n       On consideration of Lead Plaintiff and Defendants\u2019 Joint Motion re Dismissal, and good\n\ncause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that:\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 \u2013 ORDER OF DISMISSAL\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 30         Filed 06/29/23      Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n       1.       The above-captioned actions are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n\nProcedure 41(a); and\n\n       2.       The parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n       IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\nDATED: June 29th, 2023.\n\n\n                                               /s/ Jolie A. Russo\n                                              HONORABLE JOLIE A. RUSSO\n                                              UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\nSubmitted by:\n\nBLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n\nBy: s/ Michael B. Merchant\nMichael B. Merchant, OSB No. 882680\nBritta E. Warren, OSB No. 065441\n(503) 224-5560\n\nLiaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maurice A.\nRendon and Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\nPage 2 \u2013 ORDER OF DISMISSAL\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-12-24T07:56:56.700418-08:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108896891","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Order ","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-06-29T15:27:57.933271-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.414111-08:00","date_filed":"2023-06-29","time_filed":"14:53:13","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-06-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":122,"description":"ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Granting the parties' Joint Motion for Dismissal (29 in case 3:23-cv-00050-JR; 24 in case 3:23-cv-00234-JR). These actions are Dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and the parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed on 6/29/23 by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. (Associated Cases: 3:23-cv-00050-JR, 3:23-cv-00234-JR) (gm) (Entered: 06/29/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/347537953/","id":347537953,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/353962805/","id":353962805,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/29/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-06-26T16:20:38.474906-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:16:47.304167-07:00","sha1":"289aeb58a6d0dc685eaa3cfad2dad782ae355b7d","page_count":5,"file_size":28388,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.29.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.29.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 29      Filed 06/26/23    Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\nMichael B. Merchant, OSB No. 882680\nmike.merchant@bhlaw.com\nBritta E. Warren, OSB No. 065441\nbritta.warren@bhlaw.com\nBLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1900\nPortland, OR 97205\nTelephone: (503) 224-5560\nFacsimile: (503) 224-6148\n\nLiaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maurice A.\nRendon and Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                                    DISTRICT OF OREGON\n\n\n\n JAMES WAKEFIELD, Individually and on              Case No. 3:23-cv-00050-JR (Lead Case)\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n                                                   UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION RE\n                                Plaintiff,         DISMISSAL\n\n                        v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n MICHAEL BUDUKIEWICZ, Individually                 Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-JR (Trailing Case)\n and on behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n                                Plaintiff,\n\n                        v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n\nPage 1 \u2013 UNOPPOSED MOTION RE DISMISSAL\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 29        Filed 06/26/23      Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n       Lead Plaintiff Maurice A Rendon and Defendants ESS Tech Inc., Eric P. Dresselhuys,\n\nand Amir Moftakhar (collectively, the \u201cParties\u201d), by and through their undersigned counsel,\n\nhereby stipulate and agree as follows and jointly request that the Court enter the below Order\n\napproving this unopposed Motion:\n\n       WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, plaintiff James Wakefield filed the first above-\n\ncaptioned securities fraud class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the\n\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5\n\npromulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 240.10b-5 (Dkt. No. 1);\n\n       WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, plaintiff Michael Budukiewicz filed the second\n\nabove-captioned securities fraud class action alleging substantially similar claims;\n\n       WHEREAS, on April 24, 2023, the Court consolidated the above-captioned actions,\n\nappointed Maurice A. Rendon as Lead Plaintiff, and approved his selection of Glancy Prongay &\n\nMurray LLP as Lead Counsel and Black Helterline LLP as Liaison Counsel for the putative\n\nclass, and ordered that Lead Plaintiff and Defendants \u201cmeet and confer regarding a schedule for\n\nthe filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing\n\nschedule for Defendants\u2019 anticipated motion to dismiss\u201d (see Dkt. No. 26); and\n\n       WHEREAS, on May 8, 2023, the Parties submitted the Stipulated Motion for Order\n\nSetting a Schedule for the Filing of a Consolidated Complaint and Responsive Briefing\n\n(\u201cScheduling Motion\u201d) setting forth proposed deadlines for the Lead Plaintiff to file an amended\n\ncomplaint and for the Parties\u2019 anticipated motion to dismiss briefing thereon (Dkt. No. 27);\n\n       WHEREAS, the Court approved the Scheduling Motion on the same day (\u201cScheduling\n\nOrder\u201d) (Dkt. No. 28);\n\n\n\nPage 2 \u2013 UNOPPOSED MOTION RE DISMISSAL\n\f        Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR          Document 29         Filed 06/26/23       Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n        WHEREAS, the deadline to file Lead Plaintiff\u2019s consolidated complaint is June 30, 2023\n\npursuant to the Scheduling Order, but Lead Plaintiff has decided to voluntarily dismiss the\n\nabove-captioned action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a);\n\n        WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that each party shall bear its own costs and\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and that no party asserts that any of the Parties or their respective counsel have at\n\nany time failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and\n\n        WHEREAS, the Parties have not exchanged monetary consideration or agreed to any\n\nterms other than what are set forth in this document in connection with this voluntary dismissal.\n\n        NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, and respectfully\n\nrequested, by and among the undersigned counsel for the respective Parties, subject to approval\n\nof the Court, that:\n\n                1.     The above-captioned action is dismissed; and\n\n                2.     The Parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n\n\n        DATED this 26th day of June 2023.\n\n                                                 BLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n\n                                                 By: __s/ Michael B. Merchant\n                                                 Michael B. Merchant, OSB No. 882680\n                                                 Matthew D. Colley, OSB No. 125084\n                                                 (503) 224-5560\n\n                                                 Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maurice A.\n                                                 Rendon and Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\nPage 3 \u2013 UNOPPOSED MOTION RE DISMISSAL\n\f     Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR   Document 29     Filed 06/26/23      Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                                   GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\n                                   Robert V. Prongay\n                                   Charles H. Linehan\n                                   Pavithra Rajesh\n                                   1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n                                   Los Angeles, CA 90067\n                                   Telephone: (310) 201-9150\n                                   Facsimile: (310) 201-9160\n\n                                   Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maurice A. Rendon\n                                   and Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n                                   ANGELI LAW GROUP LLC\n\n                                   By: __s/ Peter Hawkes\n                                   David Angeli, OSB No. 020244\n                                   david@angelilaw.com\n                                   Peter Hawkes, OSB No. 071986\n                                   peter@angelilaw.com\n                                   121 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 400\n                                   Portland, OR 97204-3134\n                                   Telephone: (503) 954-2232\n\n\n                                   WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &\n                                       ROSATI, P.C.\n\n                                   Ignacio E. Salceda, admitted pro hac vice\n                                   ISalceda@wsgr.com\n                                   650 Page Mill Road\n                                   Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050\n                                   Telephone: (650) 493-9300\n\n                                   John C. Roberts, Jr., admitted pro hac vice\n                                   jroberts@wsgr.com\n                                   701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100\n                                   Seattle, Washington 98104-7036\n                                   Telephone: (206) 883-2500\n\n                                   Counsel for Defendants\n\n\n\n\nPage 4 \u2013 UNOPPOSED MOTION RE DISMISSAL\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR          Document 29           Filed 06/26/23     Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that on June 26, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk\n\nof the Court using the CM/ECF system and that by doing so I served the foregoing on all parties\n\nin the record of the subject case via CM/ECF system transmission.\n\n               DATED this 26th day of June 2023.\n\n                                                 BLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n\n\n                                                 By: _       s/ Michael B. Merchant\n                                                         Michael B. Merchant\n                                                         OSB No. 882680\n                                                         (503) 224-5560\n\n                                                         Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Maurice\n                                                         A. Rendon and Liaison Counsel for the\n                                                         Class\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 \u2013 Certificate of Service\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T03:59:44.234617-07:00","document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108892110","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-06-26T16:20:38.467060-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.388363-08:00","date_filed":"2023-06-26","time_filed":"15:25:52","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-06-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":120,"description":"Unopposed Motion for Order re Dismissal. Filed by Maurice A Rendon.Associated Cases: 3:23-cv-00050-JR, 3:23-cv-00234-JR (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 06/26/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/316063458/","id":316063458,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/322316028/","id":322316028,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-05-08T17:21:48.880832-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-08T17:21:48.882607-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Order ","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-08T17:21:48.877647-07:00","date_modified":"2023-05-08T17:21:48.877659-07:00","date_filed":"2023-05-08","time_filed":"17:02:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/315998235/","id":315998235,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/322250772/","id":322250772,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/27/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-05-08T16:21:49.700385-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.358794-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108840794","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-05-08T16:21:49.692774-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.347662-08:00","date_filed":"2023-05-08","time_filed":"16:09:23","entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":114,"description":"Stipulated Motion for Order Setting a Schedule for the Filing of a Consolidated Complaint and Responsive Briefing. Filed by Maurice A. Rendon.Associated Cases: 3:23-cv-00050-JR, 3:23-cv-00234-JR (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/291727898/","id":291727898,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/297949382/","id":297949382,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/26/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-04-24T12:19:35.457788-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T03:48:40.186788-07:00","sha1":"1393135d52691cdbe88ff717f54128b9d55c1948","page_count":6,"file_size":127104,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 26       Filed 04/24/23       Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON\n\n\n JAMES WAKEFIELD, Individually and on                              3:23-cv-00050-JR (Lead Case)\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n                                       Plaintiff,                                         ORDER\n\n                       v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P.\n DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                   Defendants.\n\n MICHAEL BUDUKIEWICZ, Individually                             3:23-cv-00234-JR (Trailing Case)\n and on behalf of all others similarly situated,\n                       v.\n\n ESS TECH, INC., ERIC P.                                                                 ORDER\n DRESSELHUYS, AND AMIR\n MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                           Defendants.\n_____________________________________\n\nRUSSO, Magistrate Judge:\n\n       Plaintiff, James Wakefield, brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly\n\nsituated alleging defendants ESS Tech Inc. and its Chief Executive and Financial Officers violated\n\nthe Securities Exchange Act. The proposed class consists of:\n\n       all persons other than Defendants who acquired ESS securities publicly traded on\n       the NYSE during the Class Period, and who were damaged thereby (the \"Class\").\n       Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of ESS,\n       members of the Individual Defendants' immediate families and their legal\n       representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants\n       have or had a controlling interest.\nPage 1 \u2013 ORDER\n\f         Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR                Document 26            Filed 04/24/23          Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\nComplaint (ECF 1) at \u00b6 33.\n\n         Movant Darren Sturgis, who falls within the proposed class, seeks to consolidate this action\n\nwith Budukiewicz v. ESS Tech, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-JR, and requests an order appointing\n\nhim as lead plaintiff. Plaintiff in the Budukiewicz action, Michael Budukiewicz, also seeks to\n\nconsolidate the actions and requests he be appointed as lead plaintiff. 1 Movant Maurice Rendon,\n\nalso a member of the proposed class, seeks consolidation and an order appointing him as lead\n\nplaintiff. 2 After Budukiewicz and Rendon filed their motions, movant Sturgis withdrew his motion\n\nand Budukiewicz filed a notice of non-opposition to the competing motions for appointment of\n\nlead plaintiff.\n\nA.       Consolidation\n\n         The Court must resolve pending motions to consolidate before appointing the lead plaintiff\n\nand approving lead counsel. According to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),\n\n\u201c[i]f more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims\n\narising under [PSLRA] has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for\n\npretrial purposes or for trial, the court shall not make the determination [of lead plaintiff] until\n\nafter the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii).\n\n         Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), \u201cIf actions before the court involve a common question\n\nof law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;\n\n(2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.\u201d In\n\ndetermining whether to consolidate cases, the court weighs the interest in judicial convenience\n\nagainst the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. In re Fusion-io,\n\n\n1\n  Plaintiff Budukiewicz similarly seeks to consolidate the actions and for an order appointing him as the lead\nplaintiff in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR.\n2\n  Rendon similarly seeks to consolidate the actions and an order appointing him as lead plaintiff in Case No. 3:23-\ncv-234-JR.\nPage 2 \u2013 ORDER\n\f         Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 26        Filed 04/24/23       Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\nInc. Securities Litigation, 2014 WL 2604991, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014). Further, the district\n\ncourt has broad discretion under Rule 42 to consolidate cases pending in the same district.\n\nInvestors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.\n\n1989).\n\n         The complaints in these two cases against ESS Tech are virtually identical. Each complaint,\n\non behalf of persons who acquired publicly traded ESS securities between August 11, 2022, and\n\nDecember 7, 2022, seeks damages caused by ESS\u2019s alleged violations of federal securities law.\n\nCompare Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR Complaint (ECF 1) with Case No. 3:23-cv-234 Complaint (ECF\n\n1). The two actions assert essentially identical claims based on essentially identical factual\n\nallegations. They involve common questions of both law and fact, even though either would be\n\nenough under Rule 42(a). Moreover, no party opposes consolidation. Thus, these two cases are\n\nwell-suited for consolidation and are hereby consolidated.\n\nB.       Selection of a Lead Plaintiff\n\n         The PSLRA governs the selection of a lead plaintiff in private securities class actions. In\n\nRe Fusion-io, 2014 WL 2604991, at *3. The lead plaintiff is to be the \u201cmost capable of adequately\n\nrepresenting the interests of class members.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). A three-step process\n\ndetermines the lead plaintiff. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the plaintiff\n\nwho filed the earliest action governed by the PSLRA must publicize the pendency of the action,\n\nthe claims made, and the purported class period \u201cin a widely circulated national business-oriented\n\npublication or wire service.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). This notice must also alert the public\n\nthat \u201cany member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.\u201d 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). Notice has been timely made and movants have timely moved for\n\nappointment within 60 days of the notice.\n\nPage 3 \u2013 ORDER\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 26         Filed 04/24/23       Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\n       Second, the court selects the presumptive lead plaintiff. See In Re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d\n\nat 729-30 (citing 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)). In order to determine the presumptive lead\n\nplaintiff, \u201cthe district court must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and\n\ndetermine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.\u201d Id. at 730 (footnote omitted). After\n\nthe court identifies the plaintiff with the most to gain, the court determines whether that plaintiff,\n\nbased on the information he or she provides, \u201csatisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) [of the\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure], in particular those of \u2018typicality\u2019 and \u2018adequacy.\u2019\u201d Id. If that\n\nplaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), that plaintiff becomes the presumptive lead\n\nplaintiff. Id. If not, the court selects the plaintiff with the next-largest financial stake and\n\ndetermines whether that plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a). Id. The court repeats\n\nthis process until it selects a presumptive lead plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff Wakefield has not alleged a\n\nprecise amount of his damages, but the complaint indicates a small amount in damages. He\n\npurchased 161 shares at a share price of $3.275 and alleges the share price dropped to $2.64 after\n\nESS\u2019s alleged misconduct was revealed. See Certification and Authorization of Plaintiff attached\n\nto complaint at p. 44. (ECF 1 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR) (initial purchase price); 23-cv-50-JR\n\nComplaint at \u00b6 31 (Share price, after news of ESS management\u2019s misleading activities, down to\n\n$2.64). Movant Sturgis asserts losses of $20,693.37. Plaintiff Budukiewicz indicates losses of\n\n$7,283. Movant Rendon asserts financial losses of $34,041.70. Accordingly, movant Rendon is\n\nthe presumptive lead plaintiff. A review of Rendon\u2019s moving papers also indicates he satisfies the\n\nrequirements of typicality and adequacy. All plaintiffs and proposed class plaintiffs assert the\n\nsame claim, based on the same alleged misstatements made by ESS, resulting in the purchase of\n\nover-valued shares through reliance on those misstatements. Rendon has retained counsel with\n\nthe experience to prosecute this action and is himself well-equipped to represent the class.\n\nPage 4 \u2013 ORDER\n\f        Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 26         Filed 04/24/23        Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\n        Third, those plaintiffs not selected as the presumptive lead plaintiff may rebut the\n\npresumptive lead plaintiff's showing that he satisfies Rule 23\u2019s typicality and adequacy\n\nrequirements. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). This is done by showing that the presumptive\n\nlead plaintiff either \u201cwill not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class\u201d or \u201cis subject\n\nto unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.\u201d 15\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)-(bb). If the court determines that the presumptive lead plaintiff\n\ndoes not meet the typicality or adequacy requirements, then it must return to step two, select a new\n\npresumptive lead plaintiff, and again allow the other plaintiffs to rebut the new presumptive lead\n\nplaintiff's showing. In Re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 731. The court repeats this process until all\n\nchallenges have been exhausted. Id.         As noted above, the remaining movants have either\n\nwithdrawn or submitted a notice of no objection to Rendon\u2019s motion. In addition, plaintiff\n\nWakefield has not responded to the motions other than pleading that he should be designated as\n\nlead plaintiff in the complaint itself and has not submitted any further motion seeking such\n\nappointment. Accordingly, movant Rendon is selected as the lead plaintiff.\n\n        Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff is given the right, subject to court approval, to \u201cselect\n\nand retain counsel to represent the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). \u201c[T]he district court\n\nshould not reject a lead plaintiff's proposed counsel merely because it would have chosen\n\ndifferently.\u201d Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court, 586 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). \u201c[I]f\n\nthe lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the district court should generally defer\n\nto that choice.\u201d Id. at 712. Here, plaintiff has selected Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead\n\ncounsel and Black Helterline LLP as liaison counsel. Movant Rendon\u2019s supporting papers\n\ndemonstrate proposed counsel possess the experience necessary to prosecute this securities fraud\n\ncase. Accordingly, the Court approves Rendon\u2019s selection of class counsel.\n\nPage 5 \u2013 ORDER\n\f         Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR          Document 26        Filed 04/24/23       Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\n                                           CONCLUSION\n\n         The motions to consolidate (ECF 13, 15, and 17 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR and ECF 7 and\n\n11 in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR) are granted. Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR, Wakefield v. ESS Tech, Inc.,\n\net al, is deemed the lead case and is consolidated with Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR, Budukiewicz v. ESS\n\nTech, Inc., et al. The parties shall adhere to Local Rule 42-4, \"Document Caption Requirements After\n\nConsolidation\" when submitting future pleadings in this matter. Movant Rendon\u2019s motions for\n\nappointment as lead plaintiff (ECF 17 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR and ECF 7 in Case No. 3:23-cv-\n\n234-JR) are granted and the remaining motions for appointment of lead plaintiff (ECF 13 and 15 in\n\nCase No. 3:23-cv-50-JR and ECF 11 in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR) are denied. The Court appoints\n\nGlancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and Black Helterline LLP as liaison counsel for the\n\nputative class as requested by the lead plaintiff. Movant Sturgis\u2019 motion to withdraw (ECF 22 in\n\nCase No. 3:23-cv-50-JR) is granted.\n\n         Lead plaintiff and the defendants shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of\n\na consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for\n\nDefendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. All discovery related deadlines are stayed until after a\n\nruling on the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.\n\n         DATED this 24th day of April, 2023.\n\n\n\n                                _____________________________\n                                        /s/ Jolie A. Russo\n                                          Jolie A. Russo\n                                  United States Magistrate Judge\n\n\n\n\n Page 6 \u2013 ORDER\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T03:59:49.236955-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108825178","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Order AND Order on Motion to Consolidate AND Order on Motion to Consolidate AND Order on Motion to Consolidate AND Order on Motion to Consolidate AND Order on Motion to Withdraw","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-24T12:19:35.451185-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.328335-08:00","date_filed":"2023-04-24","time_filed":"11:57:29","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":103,"description":"ORDER: The motions to consolidate (ECF 13, 15, and 17 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR; ECF 7 and 11 in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR) are Granted. Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR, Wakefield v. ESS Tech, Inc., et al, is deemed the lead case and is consolidated with Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR, Budukiewicz v. ESS Tech, Inc., et al. The parties shall adhere to Local Rule 42-4, \"Document Caption Requirements After Consolidation\" when submitting future pleadings in this matter. Movant Rendon's motions for appointment as lead plaintiff (ECF 17 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR; ECF 7 in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR) are Granted and the remaining motions for appointment of lead plaintiff (ECF 13 and 15 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR; ECF 11 in Case No. 3:23-cv-234-JR) are Denied. The Court appoints Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and Black Helterline LLP as liaison counsel for the putative class as requested by the lead plaintiff. Movant Sturgis' motion to withdraw (ECF 22 in Case No. 3:23-cv-50-JR) is Granted. Lead plaintiff and the defendants shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. All discovery related deadlines are stayed until after a ruling on the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. Signed on 4/24/23 by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. (Associated Cases: 3:23-cv-00050-JR, 3:23-cv-00234-JR) (gm) (Entered: 04/24/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/273173659/","id":273173659,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/279378635/","id":279378635,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/25/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-04-13T17:54:40.998484-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.317862-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108814518","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-13T17:54:40.991523-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.307021-08:00","date_filed":"2023-04-13","time_filed":"16:58:26","entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-04-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":101,"description":"Notice that the Motion of Maurice A. Rendon for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Liaison Counsel is Not Opposed Filed by Maurice A Rendon. (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 04/13/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/257929611/","id":257929611,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/264109104/","id":264109104,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/24/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-27T18:20:31.702710-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-23T06:16:55.641265-07:00","sha1":"be1b9d117efb7d7b5cbe1c6d337c68c976a51e75","page_count":8,"file_size":37590,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.24.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.171193/gov.uscourts.ord.171193.24.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24   Filed 03/27/23    Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\nMichael B. Merchant, OSB No. 882680\nmike.merchant@bhlaw.com\nBritta E. Warren, OSB No. 065441\nbritta.warren@bhlaw.com\nBLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1900\nPortland, OR 97205\nTelephone: (503) 224-5560\nFacsimile: (503) 224-6148\n\nLiaison Counsel for Movant Maurice A. Rendon\nand Proposed Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]\n\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                                    DISTRICT OF OREGON\n\n JAMES WAKEFIELD, Individually and on                Case No. 3:23-cv-00050-JR\n behalf of all others similarly situated,\n                                                     MAURICE A. RENDON\u2019S\n                                Plaintiff,           OPPOSITION TO THE\n                                                     COMPETING MOTIONS FOR\n                        v.                           APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n                                                     PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,                 LEAD COUNSEL\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n MICHAEL BUDUKIEWICZ, Individually                   Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-JR\n and on behalf of all others similarly situated,\n\n                                Plaintiff,\n\n                        v.\n\n ESS TECH INC., ERIC P. DRESSELHUYS,\n and AMIR MOFTAKHAR,\n\n                                Defendants.\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f        Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR            Document 24         Filed 03/27/23        Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\n        Lead Plaintiff Movant Maurice A. Rendon (\u201cRendon\u201d) submits this memorandum of law\n\nin opposition to the two competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of\n\ncounsel filed by other class members in this action (Dkt. Nos. 13, 15).1\n\nI.      INTRODUCTION\n\n        Three movants filed competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of\n\nlead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d).\n\nThe motions were filed by Rendon (Dkt. No. 17), Darren Sturgis (\u201cSturgis,\u201d Dkt. No. 13), and\n\nMichael Budukiewicz (\u201cBudukiewicz,\u201d Dkt. No. 15). Sturgis withdrew his motion on March 27,\n\n2023, conceding that he \u201cdoes not appear to have the largest financial interest.\u201d Dkt. No. 22.\n\nBudukiewicz similarly filed a notice of non-opposition to the competing motions, conceding that\n\nhe \u201cdoes not have the \u2018largest financial interest.\u2019\u201d Dkt. No. 23.\n\n        The PSLRA directs the Court to appoint the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d\u2014i.e., the plaintiff\n\n\u201cmost capable of adequately representing the interests of class members\u201d\u2014as lead plaintiff.\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA also provides a rebuttable presumption that the most\n\nadequate plaintiff is the plaintiff or movant that, inter alia, has the \u201clargest financial interest in\n\nthe relief sought by the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The presumption may be\n\nrebutted, however, by a showing that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff \u201cwill not fairly\n\nand adequately protect the interests of the class\u201d or \u201cis subject to unique defenses.\u201d 15 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n\n        As demonstrated in Rendon\u2019s memorandum of points and authorities in support of his\n\nlead plaintiff motion (Dkt. No. 26), and as conceded by the other movants, Rendon has the\n\n\n\n1\n All lead plaintiff movants support consolidation of the above-captioned related actions. As\nsuch, only appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel are addressed herein.\n\n\nPage 2 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24         Filed 03/27/23       Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\nlargest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Rendon\u2019s financial interest, as measured\n\nby his last in, first out (\u201cLIFO\u201d) loss, is $34,041.70. See Dkt. No. 18-3. As such, Rendon is the\n\npresumptively \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii).\n\n       Since Rendon is the presumptively most adequate plaintiff, and the presumption has not\n\nbeen rebutted, Rendon should be appointed lead plaintiff, and his selection of counsel should be\n\napproved.2\n\nII.    RENDON SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS LEAD PLAINTIFF\n\n       A.      The PSLRA Mandated Procedure for Appointing a Lead Plaintiff\n\n       The PSLRA mandates that the Court appoint \u201cthe most adequate plaintiff\u201d to be lead\n\nplaintiff. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA further provides a rebuttable presumption\n\nthat the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d is the movant that: (1) has either filed the complaint or made a\n\nmotion in response to a notice; (2) in the determination of the Court, has the largest financial\n\ninterest in the relief sought by the class; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23\n\nof the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\u201cRule 23\u201d). 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii); see In re\n\nCavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002) (\u201cIf the plaintiff with the largest financial stake in\n\nthe controversy provides information that satisfies these requirements, he becomes the\n\npresumptively most adequate plaintiff\u201d).\n\n       When determining which movant is presumptively most adequate, \u201cthe [PSLRA]\n\nprovides in categorical terms that the only basis on which a court may compare plaintiffs . . . is\n\nthe size of their financial stake in the controversy.\u201d Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732 (emphasis in\n\n\n\n\n2\n  \u201cThe most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel\nto represent the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).\n\n\nPage 3 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f        Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24          Filed 03/27/23       Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\noriginal). Courts may not engage in a \u201cfreewheeling comparison\u201d of \u201cbusiness acumen,\u201d or\n\n\u201cknowledge of the lawsuit.\u201d Id.\n\n        Once the Court identifies the presumptively most adequate plaintiff, the presumption may\n\nbe rebutted only \u201cupon proof . . . that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff\u201d (1) \u201cwill not\n\nfairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,\u201d or (2) \u201cis subject to unique defenses that\n\nrender such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n\n4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n\n        Here, Rendon is the presumptively most adequate plaintiff because he filed a timely lead\n\nplaintiff motion in response to a notice, has a larger financial interest than the other lead plaintiff\n\nmovants and satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Moreover, since no other movant has rebutted\n\nor can rebut this presumption, Rendon should be appointed lead plaintiff.\n\n        B.      Rendon Is the Presumptively Most Adequate Plaintiff Because He Has the\n                Largest Financial Interest in the Relief Sought by the Class\n\n        Rendon satisfies all three requirements to be the presumptively most adequate plaintiff.\n\nSee 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20134(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). First, Rendon filed a motion for appointment as lead\n\nplaintiff. See Dkt. No. 17; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20134(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa). Second, Rendon satisfies the\n\nrequirements of Rule 23, as demonstrated in Rendon\u2019s memorandum of law in support of his\n\nlead plaintiff motion. See Dkt. No. 17 at 8-10; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20134(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). Finally, as\n\nexplained infra, Rendon has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. See\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20134(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb).\n\n        Since the PSLRA does not mandate any particular methodology for determining which\n\nmovant has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, district courts are free to\n\nchoose any methodology that is \u201cboth rational and consistently applied.\u201d See Cavanaugh,\n\n306 F.3d at 730 n.4. \u201cDistrict courts have generally equated financial interest with actual\n\n\n\nPage 4 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24         Filed 03/27/23       Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\neconomic losses suffered.\u201d Deering v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00367, 2014 WL\n\n4954398, at *8 (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2014); Cannataro v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., No. 3:20-cv-1583,\n\n2020 WL 12800744, at *5 n.5 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2020) (same).\n\n       To determine losses suffered, the \u201cweight of authority\u201d dictates that the last in, first out\n\n(LIFO) methodology is most appropriate. See Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., No. 12-cv-05980,\n\n2013 WL 792642, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., No. 16-cv-00232, 2016\n\nWL 1718217, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016) (same). Indeed, LIFO is the preferred accounting\n\nmethod because it \u201chas been used not only for lead plaintiff calculations, but also to determine\n\ncompensation amounts for stockholders suffering losses due to securities fraud.\u201d See In re\n\neSpeed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 232 F.R.D. 95, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\n\n       Here, Rendon has the largest financial interest because he has, by far, the largest\n\neconomic loss:3\n\n                                      Movant             LIFO Loss\n                               Maurice A. Rendon         $34,041.70\n                               Darren C Sturgis          $18,964.56\n                               Michael Budukiewicz        $7,075.00\n\nAccordingly, Rendon has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. See\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20134(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb). Since Rendon also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23,\n\nRendon is the presumptively most adequate plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I).\n\n\n\n\n3\n  All loss values in this chart are normalized using the same 90-day trailing average price to\nvalue losses on shares retained through the end of the class period, as was used in Rendon\u2019s\nfinancial interest analysis (Dkt. No. 18-3), and as appropriate under the PSLRA. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n78u-4(e) (Limitation on Damages). Sturgis\u2019 loss figure here differs significantly from the figure\nhe provided in his loss chart (Dkt. No. 13-3, $20,693.37) because Sturgis did not apply the\ntrailing average price to value his losses on shares he sold after the class period.\n\n\nPage 5 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f        Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24          Filed 03/27/23       Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n        C.       The Presumption that Rendon Is the Most Adequate Plaintiff Has Not Been\n                 Rebutted\n\n        The lead plaintiff presumption may be rebutted only upon \u201cproof\u201d that the presumptively\n\nmost adequate plaintiff \u201cwill not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,\u201d or \u201cis\n\nsubject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the\n\nclass.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). No proof has been presented that Rendon would be\n\ninadequate or subject to unique defenses. Moreover, Rendon is not aware of any possible basis\n\nfor such a contention. To the contrary, Rendon has been managing his own investments for\n\napproximately 20 years, is a commercial pilot, and has a B.S. degree in Aeronautical Science.\n\nSee Dkt. No. 17 at 9-10. As such, Rendon should be appointed as lead plaintiff, and no other\n\nmovant is entitled to consideration. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732 (\u201cSo long as the plaintiff\n\nwith the largest losses satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements, he is entitled to lead\n\nplaintiff status.\u201d).\n\nIII.    RENDON\u2019S CHOICE OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED\n\n        The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain counsel, subject only\n\nto the Court\u2019s approval. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). See also Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 733\n\nn.11 (\u201cCongress gave the lead plaintiff . . . the power to select a lawyer for the class.\u201d). As such,\n\na District Court should only interfere with the lead plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel if the choice \u201cis\n\nso irrational, or so tainted by self-dealing or conflict of interest, as to cast genuine and serious\n\ndoubt on that plaintiff's willingness or ability to perform the functions of lead plaintiff.\u201d Id. at\n\n733.\n\n        Here, Rendon has selected Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP to be lead counsel and Black\n\nHelterline LLP as liaison counsel. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has the expertise, resources,\n\nand experience necessary to effectively conduct this litigation. See Dkt. No. 18-4 (Glancy\n\n\n\nPage 6 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR           Document 24         Filed 03/27/23       Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\nProngay & Murray LLP firm r\u00e9sum\u00e9). The firm has decades of experience successfully\n\nrepresenting injured investors. See id. By approving Rendon\u2019s selection of counsel, the Court\n\nmay be assured that the class will receive the highest caliber of legal representation.\n\nAccordingly, Rendon\u2019s selection of counsel for the class should be approved.\n\nIV.    CONCLUSION\n\n       For the foregoing reasons, Rendon respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order:\n\n(1) consolidating the above-captioned related actions; (2) appointing Maurice A. Rendon as Lead\n\nPlaintiff; (3) approving Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel and Black Helterline\n\nLLP as Liaison Counsel for the class; and (4) denying the competing motions.\n\n\n       DATED this 27th day of March 2023.\n\n                                                  BLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n\n\n                                                  By: _      s/Michael B. Merchant\n                                                       Michael B. Merchant, OSB No. 882680\n                                                       Britta E. Warren, OSB No. 065441\n                                                       (503) 224-5560\n\n                                                  Liaison Counsel for Movant Maurice A. Rendon\n                                                  and Proposed Liaison Counsel for the Class\n\n\n                                                  GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP\n                                                  Robert V. Prongay\n                                                  Charles H. Linehan\n                                                  Pavithra Rajesh\n                                                  1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100\n                                                  Los Angeles, CA 90067\n                                                  Telephone: (310) 201-9150\n                                                  Facsimile: (310) 201-9160\n\n                                                  Counsel for Movant Maurice A. Rendon and\n                                                  Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n\n\n\nPage 7 \u2013 RENDON\u2019S OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f       Case 3:23-cv-00050-JR          Document 24           Filed 03/27/23    Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\n                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n       I hereby certify that on March 27, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk\n\nof the Court using the CM/ECF system and that by doing so I served the foregoing on all parties\n\nin the record of the subject case via CM/ECF system transmission.\n\n               DATED this 27th day of March 2023.\n\n                                                 BLACK HELTERLINE LLP\n\n\n                                                 By: _       s/Michael B. Merchant\n                                                         Michael B. Merchant\n                                                         OSB No. 882680\n                                                         (503) 224-5560\n\n                                                         Liaison Counsel for Movant Maurice A.\n                                                         Rendon and Proposed Liaison Counsel for\n                                                         the Class\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 \u2013 Certificate of Service\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-22T03:59:55.001446-07:00","document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108793946","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum in Opposition","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-27T18:20:31.693956-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.281279-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-27","time_filed":"17:39:27","entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-27.003","pacer_sequence_number":97,"description":"Memorandum in Opposition to First Motion to Consolidate, Appoint Lead Plaintiff, and Appoint Counsel 13, Motion to Consolidate and Appointment as Lead Plaintiff 15 . Filed by Maurice A Rendon. (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/257758799/","id":257758799,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/263938035/","id":263938035,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/23/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-27T16:20:11.046129-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.269227-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108793643","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-27T16:20:11.040157-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.259042-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-27","time_filed":"16:08:10","entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":95,"description":"Notice of Non-Opposition to Competing Motions for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel Filed by Michael Budukiewicz. (Erickson, Aurelia) (Entered: 03/27/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/257703734/","id":257703734,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/263882936/","id":263882936,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/22/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-27T15:20:00.633386-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.246668-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108793237","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Withdraw","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-27T15:20:00.624933-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.237073-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-27","time_filed":"14:32:16","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":93,"description":"Motion to Withdraw . Filed by Darren Sturgis. (Ratliff, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/27/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/250516828/","id":250516828,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/256685042/","id":256685042,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-20T17:23:33.319300-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-20T17:23:33.320847-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"1 - Scheduling","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-20T17:23:33.316109-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-20T17:23:33.316120-07:00","date_filed":"2023-03-20","time_filed":"16:31:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/250516810/","id":250516810,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/256685024/","id":256685024,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-20T17:23:31.943779-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-20T17:23:31.945882-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-20T17:23:31.938185-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-20T17:23:31.938207-07:00","date_filed":"2023-03-20","time_filed":"16:40:33","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/244411559/","id":244411559,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/250575822/","id":250575822,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/19/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-17T17:23:47.155294-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.186372-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"19","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108783290","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-17T17:23:47.146560-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.173432-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-17","time_filed":"17:06:40","entry_number":19,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":81,"description":"Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint and Vacate Discovery-Related Deadlines. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hawkes, Peter) (Entered: 03/17/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/237092770/","id":237092770,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/243249097/","id":243249097,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/17/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-13T22:26:49.631272-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.149478-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776169","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-13T22:26:49.626783-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.139444-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-13","time_filed":"21:29:16","entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-13.005","pacer_sequence_number":73,"description":"Motion for Order for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Lead and Liaison Counsel. Filed by Maurice A Rendon. (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2023)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/237092769/","id":237092769,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66718675/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/243249096/","id":243249096,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/18/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-03-13T22:26:49.602781-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.165098-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776172","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/379612175/","id":379612175,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/18/1/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-12-01T11:30:56.955823-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-01T11:30:56.955836-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":101376,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776173","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/379612177/","id":379612177,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/18/2/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.006263-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.006278-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":293888,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776174","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/379612178/","id":379612178,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/18/3/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.048588-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.048603-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":98304,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776175","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/379612179/","id":379612179,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66718675/18/4/wakefield-v-ess-tech-inc/","date_created":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.082321-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-01T11:30:57.082332-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":29,"file_size":342016,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"15108776176","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-13T22:26:49.596658-07:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T03:28:50.157750-08:00","date_filed":"2023-03-13","time_filed":"21:32:57","entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-03-13.006","pacer_sequence_number":78,"description":"Declaration of Michael B. Merchant in Support of Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead and Liaison Counsel. Filed by Maurice A Rendon. (Related document(s): Motion for Order 17 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Merchant, Michael) (Entered: 03/13/2023)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=66718675&page_size=40"}