{"cached_at":"2026-10-14T10:45:20.181159+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71165679","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","id":71165679,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cacd/","court_id":"cacd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1790/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9059/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-08-21T09:55:03.976649-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:27.524160-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"R. Gary Klausner","referred_to_str":"Rozella A. Oliver","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-08-21","date_terminated":"2025-12-19","date_last_filing":"2025-12-19","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Omar Abdul-Hameed v. Snap Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc","docket_number":"2:25-cv-07844","docket_number_core":"2507844","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-07844","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"RGK","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"RAO","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"983871","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":"2025-08-21T09:55:03.961729-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16543952/","id":16543952,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10808702/","attorney_id":10808702,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-10-22T07:18:46.403361-07:00","date_modified":"2025-10-22T07:18:46.403370-07:00","name":"Rodney Parsons","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16082704/","id":16082704,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948607/","attorney_id":10948607,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948608/","attorney_id":10948608,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.194998-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.195013-07:00","name":"Derek Andersen","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16082703/","id":16082703,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948607/","attorney_id":10948607,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948608/","attorney_id":10948608,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.176656-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.176671-07:00","name":"Evan T. Spiegel","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16082702/","id":16082702,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948606/","attorney_id":10948606,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948607/","attorney_id":10948607,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10948608/","attorney_id":10948608,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.157896-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-21T09:55:05.157913-07:00","name":"Snap Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16082701/","id":16082701,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10630349/","attorney_id":10630349,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10630349/","attorney_id":10630349,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","docket_id":71165679,"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":"2025-08-21T09:55:04.655685-07:00","date_modified":"2025-08-21T09:55:04.655700-07:00","name":"Omar Abdul-Hameed","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447827776/","id":447827776,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462589104/","id":462589104,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/41/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-19T13:05:58.980124-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:36.017424-07:00","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":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046590066","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Voluntary Dismissal of a Case (Pursuant to FRCP 41a (1))","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-19T13:05:58.823683-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.962570-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-19","time_filed":"12:33:50","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. Dismissal is Without Prejudice. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 12/19/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447015228/","id":447015228,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461755129/","id":461755129,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/35/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T08:07:58.942351-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.462538-07:00","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":"35","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":"2025-12-12T08:07:58.873511-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.423310-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: finding as moot 30 ; granting 34 Non-Resident Attorney Kristina A. Bunting APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel, designating Kenneth M. Cochran as local counsel. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY (sbou) (Entered: 11/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447015220/","id":447015220,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461755122/","id":461755122,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/32/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T08:07:58.343215-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.205999-07:00","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":"32","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":"2025-12-12T08:07:58.161070-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.178176-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 29 Non-Resident Attorney Audra Soloway APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel, designating Kenneth Maechtlen Cochran as local counsel. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY (sbou) (Entered: 11/14/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447015218/","id":447015218,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461755120/","id":461755120,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/31/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T08:07:58.089063-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.133417-07:00","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":"31","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":"2025-12-12T08:07:57.979780-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.080468-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Movant Rodney Parson's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel 18 and Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 22, calendared for hearing on 11/17/2025, have been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446514254/","id":446514254,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461240834/","id":461240834,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/38/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-08T13:04:04.523246-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.758581-07:00","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":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046496093","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Waiver of Service Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-08T13:04:04.430796-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.719638-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-08","time_filed":"12:45:14","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":126,"description":"WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. upon Snap Inc. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 12/5/2025, answer due 2/3/2026. Waiver of Service signed by Audra J. Soloway. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446514211/","id":446514211,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461240791/","id":461240791,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/39/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-08T13:04:01.651311-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.860004-07:00","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":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046496117","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Waiver of Service Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-08T13:04:01.540832-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.819849-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-08","time_filed":"12:46:11","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-08.002","pacer_sequence_number":128,"description":"WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. upon Evan T. Spiegel waiver sent by Plaintiff on 12/5/2025, answer due 2/3/2026. Waiver of Service signed by Audra J. Soloway. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446514183/","id":446514183,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461240763/","id":461240763,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/40/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-08T13:03:59.622046-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.924538-07:00","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":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046496132","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Waiver of Service Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-08T13:03:59.534597-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.892944-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-08","time_filed":"12:47:10","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-08.003","pacer_sequence_number":130,"description":"WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. upon Derek Andersen waiver sent by Plaintiff on 12/5/2025, answer due 2/3/2026. Waiver of Service signed by Audra J. Soloway. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446359968/","id":446359968,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461080097/","id":461080097,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/37/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-05T16:05:51.306043-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.669230-07:00","sha1":"79577dfb22d6f75cf28179fe35250670ecd3cd33","page_count":1,"file_size":78837,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 37 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 1 Page ID\n #:462\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAOx Date December 5, 2025\n\n Title Omar Abdul-Hameed v. Snap Inc., et al.\n\n\n Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n Joseph Remigio N/A\n Deputy Clerk Court Reporter\n\n Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:\n None appearing None appearing\n Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution\n\nAbsent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint\nare not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 4(m). Generally,\ndefendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United\nStates). Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(a)(1).\n\nIn the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the\ncourt, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing by December 9, 2025, why this action\nshould not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to certain defendant/s.\n\nAlternatively, the Court will consider the following a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause:\n Alternative Response Response As to Defendant/s:\n Due Date\n X Proof of TIMELY AND PROPER service of 12/9/2025 Snap Inc.\n summons and operative complaint Evan T. Spiegel\n Derek Andersen\n Response to the operative Complaint\n\n\n If defendant fails to respond on the date above,\n Plaintiff\u2019s application for entry of default by clerk\n pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules of Civil\n Procedure\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s motion for default judgment pursuant to\n Rule 55b of the Federal Rules of Civil\n Procedure\n\nIf a satisfactory response is not timely filed, the matter or the listed defendants will be dismissed for lack of\nprosecution without further warning. A stipulation to extend dates or a notice of settlement do not\nconstitute a proper response to this order.\n\nPursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court finds that this matter is appropriate for\nsubmission without oral argument. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions\nincluding dismissal of certain parties and/or the entire action for lack of prosecution without further warning.\n\nPlaintiff to serve this order on any non-appearing defendant/s who have been formally served.\n\n\n CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk jre\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-10T02:45:38.877679-08:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046485718","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order to Show Cause","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-05T16:05:51.247759-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.586416-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-05","time_filed":"15:31:09","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-05.002","pacer_sequence_number":124,"description":"(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/9/2025. (POS ON ALL DEFS) (jre) (Entered: 12/05/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446348148/","id":446348148,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461068083/","id":461068083,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/36/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-05T14:33:06.990912-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.545069-07:00","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":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046484028","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appoint Counsel AND Appoint Counsel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-05T14:33:06.934584-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.501803-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-05","time_filed":"14:12:57","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":121,"description":"IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Order Re: Motions for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Counsel [18, 22]. The Court GRANTS Abdul Hameed's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Counsel 22 and DENIES Parsons' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Counsel 18 . The Com1 appoints Abdul-Hameed as lead plaintiff and appoints Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel. (lc) (Entered: 12/05/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444434356/","id":444434356,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459100732/","id":459100732,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-17T15:03:49.061369-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-17T15:03:49.073359-08:00","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":"Appear Pro Hac Vice AND Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-17T15:03:49.035793-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-17T15:03:49.035808-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-17","time_filed":"14:32:05","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444377029/","id":444377029,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459042404/","id":459042404,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/34/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-17T10:33:52.363797-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.373228-07:00","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":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046342812","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice (G-64)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-17T10:33:52.323955-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.326437-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-17","time_filed":"10:12:08","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":114,"description":"APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kristina A. Bunting to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $450 Previously Paid on 11/13/2025, Receipt No. ACACDC-40898203) filed by Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bunting, Kristina) (Entered: 11/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444200391/","id":444200391,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458862627/","id":458862627,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/33/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-14T16:08:49.634911-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.272982-07:00","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":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046335024","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Deficiency in Electronically filed Pro Hac Vice Application (G-112C) - optional html form","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-14T16:08:49.571226-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.234193-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-14","time_filed":"15:53:09","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-14.002","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":"NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kristina A. Bunting to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $450.00 Previously Paid on 11/13/2025, Receipt No. ACACDC-40898203) 30 . The following error(s) was/were found: Application not signed by local counsel. (sbou) (Entered: 11/14/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444197799/","id":444197799,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458859904/","id":458859904,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-14T15:33:31.293075-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-14T15:33:31.307718-08:00","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":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-14T15:33:31.261901-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-14T15:33:31.261914-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-14","time_filed":"15:15:14","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444035335/","id":444035335,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458693106/","id":458693106,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-11-13T13:04:58.490147-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T13:04:58.497516-08:00","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":"Text Only Scheduling Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T13:04:58.475058-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-13T13:04:58.475069-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-13","time_filed":"12:38:43","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444009187/","id":444009187,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458666605/","id":458666605,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/30/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-13T11:09:14.801353-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:35.030485-07:00","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":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046317978","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice (G-64)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-13T11:09:14.703928-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.995288-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-13","time_filed":"10:48:37","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":98,"description":"APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kristina A. Bunting to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $450.00 Previously Paid on 11/13/2025, Receipt No. ACACDC-40898203) filed by Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Attorney Kristina A. Bunting added to party Derek Andersen(pty:dft), Attorney Kristina A. Bunting added to party Snap Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Kristina A. Bunting added to party Evan T. Spiegel(pty:dft)) (Bunting, Kristina) (Entered: 11/13/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443906835/","id":443906835,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458561333/","id":458561333,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/29/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-12T14:34:56.660931-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.942695-07:00","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":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046310217","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice (G-64)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-12T14:34:56.625809-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.895795-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-12","time_filed":"14:12:43","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":93,"description":"APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Audra Soloway to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $450 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-40892515) filed by Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Attorney Audra J. Soloway added to party Derek Andersen(pty:dft), Attorney Audra J. Soloway added to party Snap Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Audra J. Soloway added to party Evan T. Spiegel(pty:dft)) (Soloway, Audra) (Entered: 11/12/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443786245/","id":443786245,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458435902/","id":458435902,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/28/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-11T16:32:00.739572-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.836536-07:00","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":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046303683","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-11T16:32:00.721631-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.797660-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-11","time_filed":"16:09:42","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":88,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Kenneth Maechtlen Cochran counsel for Defendants Derek Andersen, Snap Inc., Evan T. Spiegel. Adding Kenneth M. Cochran as counsel of record for Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, and Derek Andersen for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, and Derek Andersen. (Attorney Kenneth Maechtlen Cochran added to party Derek Andersen(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth Maechtlen Cochran added to party Snap Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth Maechtlen Cochran added to party Evan T. Spiegel(pty:dft))(Cochran, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/11/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443006487/","id":443006487,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457632189/","id":457632189,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/27/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-03T17:02:44.714962-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.753582-07:00","sha1":"6590465fa35c311ca98cc127eae2674c9b493cc1","page_count":19,"file_size":299026,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.27.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.27.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 19 Page ID\n #:417\n\n\n\n 1 LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP\n 2 Adam M. Apton (SBN 316506)\n aapton@zlk.com\n 3 515 South Flower Street\n 4 18 and 19 Floors\n th th\n\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 5 Tel: (213) 985-7290\n 6\n Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n 7 Omar Abdul-Hameed and [Proposed]\n 8 Lead Counsel for the Class\n 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 10\n 11 OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED, No.: 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n Individually and on Behalf of All\n 12 Others Similarly Situated, OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED\u2019S\n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND\n Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO\n 14 COMPETING MOTION FOR\n 15 v. APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF\n 16 SNAP INC., EVAN T. SPIEGEL, and SELECTION OF COUNSEL\n 17 DEREK ANDERSEN,\n Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner\n 18 Defendants. Date: November 17, 2025\n 19 Time: 9:00 a.m.\n Courtroom: #850\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n i\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 19 Page ID\n #:418\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1\n 3\n 4 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2\n\n 5 A. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Is the Presumptive Lead Plaintiff Because He\n 6\n Possesses the Largest Financial Interest in the Litigation and Satisfies\n 7\n 8 Rule 23\u2019s Typicality and Adequacy Requirements. ................................. 2\n\n 9 B. Movant Rodney Parsons Does Not Provide \u201cProof\u201d that Mr. Abdul-\n 10\n Hameed Is Unable to Represent the Class or Subject to Any Unique\n 11\n 12 Defenses. ................................................................................................... 5\n\n 13 III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n ii\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 19 Page ID\n #:419\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2\n Cases\n 3\n 4 Applestein v. Medivation, Inc.,\n 5 No. C 10-00998 MHP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98255 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 17,\n 6\n 2010) .................................................................................................................... 8\n 7\n 8 Bridgestone Inv. Corp. v. United States Dist. Court,\n 9 789 F. App\u2019x 13 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 9\n 10\n Cook v. Allergan PLC,\n 11\n 12 No. 18 Civ. 12089, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) .. 8\n\n 13 Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp.,\n 14\n 132 F.R.D. 359, 371 (D. Del. 1990).................................................................... 9\n 15\n 16 In re Donnkenny Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n 17 171 F.R.D. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................... 7\n 18\n Farooq Khan v. Chargepoint Holdings, Inc.,\n 19\n 20 No. 23-cv06172-PCP, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88645 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2024)\n 21 ............................................................................................................................. 6\n 22\n Flora v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,\n 23\n 24 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85517 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017) .................................... 9\n 25 Goldstein v. Puda Coal, Inc.,\n 26\n 827 F. Supp. 2d 348, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................... 6\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n iii\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 19 Page ID\n #:420\n\n\n\n 1 Grad v. Ironnet, Inc.,\n 2\n No. 1:22-cv-00449 (RDA/JFA), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125880 (E.D. Va. July\n 3\n 4 15, 2022).............................................................................................................. 1\n\n 5 Hall v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,\n 6\n No. CV-08-1821-PHX-GMS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24093 (D. Ariz. Mar. 10,\n 7\n 8 2009) .................................................................................................................... 7\n\n 9 In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n 10\n 257 F.R.D. 260 (N.D. Ala. 2009) ........................................................................ 7\n 11\n 12 Isaacs v. Musk,\n 13 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200717 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018).......................... 9, 10\n 14\n Lako v. Loandepot, Inc.,\n 15\n 16 No. 8:21-cv-01449-JLS-JDE, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79063 (C.D. Cal. May 2,\n\n 17 2022) ................................................................................................................ 3, 4\n 18\n Lowe v. Tandem Diabetes Care Inc.,\n 19\n 20 No. 3:23-cv-01657-H-BLM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217226 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6,\n 21 2023) .................................................................................................................... 4\n 22\n McIntire v. China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc.,\n 23\n 24 38 F. Supp. 3d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ................................................................... 6\n 25 Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.,\n 26\n No. 15-cv-2546-RM-MEH, 2016 LX 52410 (D. Colo. Feb. 18, 2016).............. 6\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n iv\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 19 Page ID\n #:421\n\n\n\n 1 Mersho v. United States Dist. Court,\n 2 6 F.4th at 899 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 5\n 3\n In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 4\n 5 199 F.R.D. 119, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................................................ 7\n 6 Patel v. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,\n 7\n 549 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2021) ................................................................ 7\n 8\n 9 Peters v. Colony Credit Real Estate,\n 10 No. CV 20-8305 PSG (PVCx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259449 (C.D. Cal. Dec.\n 11\n 11, 2020).............................................................................................................. 4\n 12\n 13 In re Priceline.com Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 14 236 F.R.D. 89, 100 (D. Conn. 2006) ................................................................... 9\n 15\n In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation,\n 16\n 17 192 F.R.D. 656, 658 (D. Colo. 2000).................................................................. 8\n 18\n In re Scientific\u2014Atlanta, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 19\n 571 F.Supp.2d 1315, 1330-31 (N.D. Ga. 2007) .................................................. 7\n 20\n 21 In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 22\n 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212238 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) ................................ 6\n 23\n In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 24\n 25 No. 18-cv-04865-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212238 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,\n 26\n 2018) .................................................................................................................... 9\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n v\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 19 Page ID\n #:422\n\n\n\n 1 Thant v. Rain Oncology Inc.,\n 2\n No. 5:23-cv-03518-EJD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196329 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1,\n 3\n 4 2023) .................................................................................................................... 5\n\n 5\n Wolfe v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc.,\n 6\n 7 275 F.R.D. 625, 628 (D. Colo. 2011) ................................................................. 8\n 8\n 9 Statutes\n 10\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4 ............................................................................................ passim\n 11\n 12 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78c......................................................................................................... 1\n 13\n 14 Rules\n 15\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ............................................................................................ passim\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n vi\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 7 of 19 Page ID\n #:423\n\n\n\n 1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n 2\n Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed is the statutory presumptive lead plaintiff\n 3\n 4 because he possesses the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief sought by the class\u201d\n\n 5 and \u201csatisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d\n 6\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). With over $5.5 million in losses, the only other\n 7\n 8 movant, Rodney Parsons, cannot claim he lost more than Mr. Abdul-Hameed.\n\n 9 Furthermore, as the initial plaintiff who commenced this action, Mr. Parsons cannot\n 10\n credibly dispute Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s typicality of the class or adequacy to\n 11\n 12 represent it. Indeed, but for Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s actions to date, there would be no\n\n 13 class to represent in the first place.\n 14\n Mr. Parsons\u2019 only argument against Mr. Abdul-Hameed is that Mr. Abdul-\n 15\n 16 Hameed invested in Snap vis-\u00e0-vis common stock and options (with the \u201coptions\u201d\n\n 17 part making him atypical). The class definition, however, explicitly includes \u201call\n 18\n investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Snap securities.\u201d The term\n 19\n 20 \u201csecurities\u201d includes options. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78c(a)(10) (\u201cThe term \u2018security\u2019\n\n 21 means any note, stock, . . . any put, call, straddle, option or privilege on any\n 22\n security[.]\u201d). Moreover, \u201c[w]hen an applicant has incurred losses from both the\n 23\n 24 purchase of common stock and call options, such trading behavior is not atypical of\n 25 the class when the class seeks recovery for all losses related to the securities of the\n 26\n issuer.\u201d Grad v. Ironnet, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00449 (RDA/JFA), 2022 U.S. Dist.\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 8 of 19 Page ID\n #:424\n\n\n\n 1 LEXIS 125880, at *10 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2022). That is the case here where Mr.\n 2\n Abdul-Hameed incurred approximately $1.8 million in losses from transactions in\n 3\n 4 common stock alone.\n 5 The majority of cases on this issue hold that investors like Mr. Abdul-Hameed\n 6\n can, and routinely do, serve as lead plaintiffs. No reason exists to deviate from these\n 7\n 8 cases, especially in light of Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s investing experience and\n 9 demonstrated commitment to pursuing this case as the initial named plaintiff.\n 10\n II. ARGUMENT\n 11\n 12 A. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Is the Presumptive Lead Plaintiff Because He\n\n 13 Possesses the Largest Financial Interest in the Litigation and\n 14\n Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Typicality and Adequacy Requirements.\n 15\n 16 The PSLRA provides for a \u201crebuttable presumption\u201d in favor of the movant\n\n 17 with the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief sought by the class\u201d that \u201cotherwise\n 18\n satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Once\n 19\n 20 triggered, this presumption effectively controls the lead plaintiff selection process.\n 21 The presumption can be rebutted only upon \u201cproof\u201d that the movant \u201cwill not fairly\n 22\n and adequately protect the interests of the class\u201d or \u201cis subject to unique defenses\n 23\n 24 that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C.\n 25 \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n 26\n Mr. Abdul-Hameed possesses the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 9 of 19 Page ID\n #:425\n\n\n\n 1 sought by the class.\u201d He sustained a loss of approximately $5.5 million due to\n 2\n Defendants\u2019 alleged wrongful conduct, a fact that Mr. Parsons does not challenge.\n 3\n 4 See Dkt. No. 23-3 (Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s loss analysis). In comparison, Mr. Parsons\n 5 lost $867,502.95. See Dkt. No. 19-4 (Mr. Parsons loss analysis).\n 6\n Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s motion papers also make the necessary prima facie\n 7\n 8 showing of adequacy and typicality. Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s claims are typical of\n 9 those of other Class members because, like other Class members, he acquired Snap\n 10\n securities during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated by Defendants\u2019\n 11\n 12 misrepresentations and/or omissions that form the basis of the action. Moreover,\n 13 Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s claims are based on the same legal theory and arise from the\n 14\n same events and course of conduct as the Class\u2019s claims. See Lako v. Loandepot,\n 15\n 16 Inc., No. 8:21-cv-01449-JLS-JDE, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79063, at *20 (C.D. Cal.\n 17 May 2, 2022) (\u201cLaFrano\u2019s claims are based on the same legal theory and arise from\n 18\n the same events and course of conduct as the proposed class's claims, and the Court\n 19\n 20 therefore concludes that LaFrano satisfies Rule 23(a)(3)\u2019s typicality requirement.\u201d).\n 21 Mr. Abdul-Hameed also satisfies Rule 23\u2019s adequacy requirement because\n 22\n his interests are clearly aligned with the rest of the Class. See Lako, 2022 U.S. Dist.\n 23\n 24 LEXIS 79063, at *20-21. He has no conflicts with other Class Members, nor is there\n 25 evidence of antagonism between Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s interest and those of the\n 26\n Class. Furthermore, Mr. Abdul-Hameed considers himself to be a sophisticated\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 10 of 19 Page ID\n #:426\n\n\n\n 1 individual, with a background in engineering and 10 years of managing his own\n 2\n portfolio. Further, in his certification, Mr. Abdul-Hameed states his familiarity with,\n 3\n 4 and willingness to take on, the duties of a lead plaintiff and class representative\n 5 under the PSLRA and Rule 23. See ECF No. 23-2 (Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s PSLRA\n 6\n Certification) and ECF No. 25 at 8 (Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s opposition brief). Mr.\n 7\n 8 Abdul-Hameed\u2019s interest in the case combined with his professional and educational\n 9 background are sufficient to demonstrate adequacy at this stage in the case. See\n 10\n Lako, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79063, at *20-21 (appointing retired HVAC specialist\n 11\n 12 from New Jersey); Peters v. Colony Credit Real Estate, No. CV 20-8305 PSG\n 13 (PVCx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259449, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) (adequacy\n 14\n demonstrated where \u201cthere [was] no conflict between the interest of CCIG and those\n 15\n 16 of the class because both CCIG and the class seek to recover funds for purchases of\n 17 Colony Credit common stock made pursuant to the merger\u201d).\n 18\n Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as counsel further\n 19\n 20 demonstrates his adequacy to serve as the lead plaintiff. The firm has been\n 21 appointed to serve as lead counsel numerous times and has recovered hundreds of\n 22\n millions of dollars for investors. See ECF No. 23-5 (firm resume). Mr. Abdul-\n 23\n 24 Hameed\u2019s selection of skilled counsel underscores his adequacy to represent the\n 25 class. See, e.g., Lowe v. Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01657-H-BLM,\n 26\n 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217226, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2023) (noting Levi &\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 4\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 11 of 19 Page ID\n #:427\n\n\n\n 1 Korsinsky as \u201cwell experienced in complex securities class action litigation and can\n 2\n represent the interests of the class\u201d); Thant v. Rain Oncology Inc., No. 5:23-cv-\n 3\n 4 03518-EJD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196329, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2023) (\u201cThe\n 5 Court has reviewed [Levi & Korsinsky, LLP\u2019s] resume[] and is satisfied with Dr.\n 6\n Thant\u2019s selection of counsel.\u201d).\n 7\n 8 B. Movant Rodney Parsons Does Not Provide \u201cProof\u201d that Mr.\n\n 9 Abdul-Hameed Is Unable to Represent the Class or Subject to Any\n 10\n Unique Defenses.\n 11\n 12 Mr. Abdul-Hameed filed a timely motion for lead plaintiff, possesses the\n\n 13 largest financial interest in the action, and meets the typicality and adequacy\n 14\n requirements of Rule 23. Consequently, he is the \u201cpresumptive\u201d lead plaintiff at this\n 15\n 16 stage of the proceedings. See Mersho v. United States Dist. Court, 6 F.4th at 899\n 17 (9th Cir. 2021). For Mr. Parsons to rebut this presumption, he must adduce \u201cproof\u201d\n 18\n showing that Mr. Abdul-Hameed \u201cwill not fairly and adequately protect the interests\n 19\n 20 of the class\u201d or \u201cis subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of\n 21 adequately representing the class.\u201d Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-\n 22\n 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)-(bb)). Mr. Parsons\u2019 only argument against Mr. Abdul-\n 23\n 24 Hameed is that he \u201ctraded primarily in options contracts, thereby making him an\n 25 atypical investor and an inadequate representative for the class.\u201d See ECF No. 24 at 2\n 26\n (Mr. Parsons\u2019 opposition brief).\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 5\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 12 of 19 Page ID\n #:428\n\n\n\n 1 Like all purported class members in this case, Mr. Abdul-Hameed invested in\n 2\n Snap during the Class Period while the Company\u2019s stock price was artificially\n 3\n 4 inflated and suffered injuries based on the same alleged fraudulent conduct. The\n 5 sole fact that Mr. Abdul-Hameed invested in common stock and options does not\n 6\n interfere with typicality. This is because the class definition in this case explicitly\n 7\n 8 includes investors who \u201cpurchased or otherwise acquired Snap securities\u201d See, e.g.,\n 9 Abdul-Hameed Complaint, No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO, Dkt. No. 1, \u00b61.\n 10\n \u201cSecurities\u201d refers to both common stock and options. See Farooq Khan v.\n 11\n 12 Chargepoint Holdings, Inc., No. 23-cv06172-PCP, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88645,\n 13 at *12 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2024) (\u201cthe class definition expressly includes purchasers\n 14\n of \u2018securities,\u2019 which necessarily encompasses both options and common stock\u201d).\n 15\n 16 Thus, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is typical of his other class members, by definition, and\n 17 can serve as the lead plaintiff. See In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist.\n 18\n LEXIS 212238, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) (lead plaintiff was option trader);\n 19\n 20 Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., No. 15-cv-2546-RM-MEH, 2016 LX 52410, at\n 21 *10-11 (D. Colo. Feb. 18, 2016) (\u201cAlthough the Arkin Group may have held\n 22\n securities that other members of the class did not, such as options [...] the losses\n 23\n 24 allegedly incurred on those securities are still premised on the same factual\n 25 allegations and legal theories.\u201d); McIntire v. China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc.,\n 26\n 38 F. Supp. 3d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (class definition included put options sellers);\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 6\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 13 of 19 Page ID\n #:429\n\n\n\n 1 Goldstein v. Puda Coal, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 348, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (appointing\n 2\n a movant that \u201ctraded in both common stock and options during the class period\u201d);\n 3\n 4 In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 257 F.R.D. 260 (N.D. Ala. 2009) (class\n 5 definition included persons who purchased or acquired options); Hall v. Medicis\n 6\n Pharm. Corp., No. CV-08-1821-PHX-GMS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24093, at *13\n 7\n 8 (D. Ariz. Mar. 10, 2009) (\u201cthe Court is reluctant to disqualify Rand simply because\n 9 he trades in options.\u201d); In re Scientific\u2014Atlanta, Inc. Sec. Litig., 571 F.Supp.2d\n 10\n 1315, 1330-31 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (finding an options trader suitable to lead a class in\n 11\n 12 a securities class action); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 199 F.R.D.\n 13 119, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (class included put options sellers); In re Donnkenny Inc.,\n 14\n Sec. Litig., 171 F.R.D. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that an options trader\n 15\n 16 who purchased both options and common stock was an adequate lead plaintiff).\n 17 Mr. Parsons relies heavily on Patel v. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 549 F.\n 18\n Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2021). See Dkt. No. 24 at 4. This case is both out of circuit\n 19\n 20 and inapposite. In Patel, a lead plaintiff movant was found atypical of the putative\n 21 class because \u201chis losses arose exclusively from his options; in fact, Massar profited\n 22\n from his common-stock investments.\u201d Patel, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 567 (emphasis\n 23\n 24 added). Mr. Abdul-Hameed did not trade exclusively in options and, as stated\n 25 previously, sustained significant losses from his transactions in common stock.\n 26\n Thus, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is not similar to the lead plaintiff movant who the court\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 14 of 19 Page ID\n #:430\n\n\n\n 1 disqualified in Patel. See id. (\u201cthe fact that Massar\u2019s losses during the Class Period\n 2\n were based solely on option contracts renders Massar atypical of the putative\n 3\n 4 class\u201d).\n 5 Mr. Parsons also relies on Applestein v. Medivation, Inc., No. C 10-00998\n 6\n MHP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98255 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2010), and Cook v.\n 7\n 8 Allergan PLC, No. 18 Civ. 12089, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.\n 9 21, 2019). ECF No. 24 at 5. But these cases are distinguishable for the same reason\n 10\n as Patel. The shareholder in Applestein \u201cdid not own a single share of Medivation\n 11\n 12 stock during the class period. His claimed losses stem primarily from naked-put\n 13 option contracts . . . .\u201d Applestein, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98255, at *10-11.\n 14\n Similarly, the shareholder in Cook invested in both common stock and options but\n 15\n 16 his stock losses were significantly less than the other competing movants\u2019 stock\n 17 losses. Cook, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962, at *4 ($420,000 compared to\n 18\n $750,000).\n 19\n 20 \u201cAlthough different plaintiffs may invoke different factual circumstances,\n 21 typicality is present \u2018so long as the claims of the class representative and class\n 22\n members are based upon the same legal or remedial theory.\u2019\u201d See Wolfe v. AspenBio\n 23\n 24 Pharma, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 625, 628 (D. Colo. 2011) (quoting In re Ribozyme\n 25 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 192 F.R.D. 656, 658 (D. Colo. 2000)).\n 26\n Indeed, the notion that Mr. Abdul-Hameed cannot serve as the lead plaintiff for the\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 8\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 15 of 19 Page ID\n #:431\n\n\n\n 1 class he initially created solely because he traded options runs contrary to the\n 2\n majority of the case law on this issue. See, e.g., Flora v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,\n 3\n 4 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85517, at *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017) (\u201cthe fact that [co-\n 5 lead plaintiff movant] only purchased options during the class period does not rebut\n 6\n the presumption in its favor.\u201d); In re Priceline.com Inc. Sec. Litig., 236 F.R.D. 89,\n 7\n 8 100 (D. Conn. 2006) (certifying class representative who \u201ctestified that his practice\n 9 of writing put options was founded upon the integrity of the price of the underlying\n 10\n shares\u201d); Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp., 132 F.R.D. 359, 371 (D. Del. 1990)\n 11\n 12 (appointing lead plaintiff who purchased only call options to represent class of\n 13 purchasers of call options and common stock).\n 14\n Isaacs v. Musk, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200717 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018),\n 15\n 16 confirms Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s point on this issue. In that case, the court appointed\n 1\n\n\n 17 an individual investor as the lead plaintiff who sustained the majority of his losses\n 18\n from trading options. The court held: \u201cSome moving parties have criticized Mr.\n 19\n 20 1\n The decision in Isaacs v. Musk was affirmed twice, first by the district court in\n 21\n 22 response to a motion for reconsideration, In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 18-cv-\n 23 04865-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212238 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018), and then\n 24\n again by the Ninth Circuit in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus,\n 25\n 26 Bridgestone Inv. Corp. v. United States Dist. Court, 789 F. App\u2019x 13 (9th Cir.\n 27 2019).\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 9\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 16 of 19 Page ID\n #:432\n\n\n\n 1 Littleton because his long position in common stock (as opposed to options)\n 2\n resulted in a relatively small loss compared to others. While this is true, Mr.\n 3\n 4 Littleton sustained a significant loss from his long position in options; the interests\n 5 of those who held long positions in options and those who held long positions in\n 6\n common stock are sufficiently similar to render his representation adequate as to\n 7\n 8 both.\u201d Id. at *19 (emphasis added). Similarly, while Mr. Abdul-Hameed lost a\n 9 significant amount of money from options, like Mr. Littleton in Isaacs v. Musk, he\n 10\n also sustained losses from purchasing common stock. Therefore, \u201c[Mr. Abdul-\n 11\n 12 Hameed] held interests that cover most of the persons/entities likely to be in the\n 13 class \u2014 i.e., long positions in common stock, long positions in options, and short\n 14\n positions in options \u2014 and thus can most adequately represent the class.\u201d Id. at *18-\n 15\n 16 19.\n 17 III. CONCLUSION\n 18\n For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Abdul-Hameed respectfully requests that the\n 19\n 20 Court grant his Motion and enter an order: (1) appointing Mr. Abdul-Hameed as\n 21 Lead Plaintiff; (2) approving his selection of Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel for\n 22\n the Class; and (3) granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n 23\n 24\n 25 [Signature on following page]\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 10\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 17 of 19 Page ID\n #:433\n\n\n\n 1\n Dated: November 3, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n 2\n LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP\n 3\n 4 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton (SBN 316506)\n 5 aapton@zlk.com\n 6 515 South Flower Street\n 18th and 19th Floors\n 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 8 Tel: (213) 985-7290\n\n 9 Lead Counsel for Omar Abdul-Hameed and\n 10 [Proposed] Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 11\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 18 of 19 Page ID\n #:434\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT\n 2\n The undersigned, counsel of record for Omar Abdul-Hameed, certifies that\n 3\n 4 this brief contains 2,264 words, which complies with the word limit of L.R. 11-6.1\n 5 and Paragraph 6 of this Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases\n 6\n dated May 2023. Executed on this 3rd day of November 2025.\n 7\n 8 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 12\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 27 Filed 11/03/25 Page 19 of 19 Page ID\n #:435\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 3\n 4 I, Adam M. Apton, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:\n\n 5 I am a partner attorney at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, with offices at 515 South\n 6\n Flower Street, 18th and 19th Floors, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of\n 7\n 8 eighteen.\n 9 On November 3, 2025, I electronically filed the following OMAR ABDUL-\n 10\n HAMEED\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN\n 11\n 12 REPLY TO COMPETING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n 13 PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL with the\n 14\n Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing\n 15\n 16 to counsel of record. Executed on this 3rd day of November 2025.\n 17\n 18 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:30:33.288953-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046244703","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-03T17:02:44.679955-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.713747-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-03","time_filed":"16:38:21","entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":85,"description":"REPLY in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 18 filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 11/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443005236/","id":443005236,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457630924/","id":457630924,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/26/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-03T16:32:13.599835-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.668009-07:00","sha1":"558fb39b9f545e3da9e7a5007e5991917568667f","page_count":8,"file_size":402427,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 8 Page ID\n #:409\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Laurence M. Rosen (219683)\n THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 2 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n 4 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684\n 5 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n 6\n Counsel for Movant and [Proposed]\n 7 Lead Counsel for the Class\n 8\n [Additional Counsel Listed Below]\n 9\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 10\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 11\n 12 OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED, ) Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK-\n Individually and on behalf of All ) RAO\n 13 Others Similarly Situated, )\n 14 ) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF\n Plaintiff, ) RODNEY PARSONS IN\n 15 ) FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD\n 16 v. ) PLAINTIFF MOTION\n )\n 17\n SNAP INC., EVAN T. SPIEGEL, ) CLASS ACTION\n 18 and DEREK ANDERSEN, )\n 19\n ) JUDGE: R. Gary Klausner\n Defendants. ) HEARING: November 17, 2025\n 20 ) TIME: 9:00 a.m.\n 21 ) CTRM: 850\n )\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 1\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 8 Page ID\n #:410\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Of the two movants before the Court, only Mr. Parsons is qualified to\n\n 2 represent the putative class. Regardless of the sums that Mr. Abdul-Hameed may\n 3\n have lost through his trading activities, the fact that he traded primarily in options\n 4\n 5 contracts renders him atypical, inadequate, and an inappropriate representative for\n 6\n the class of Snap investors. On the other hand, there has been no suggestion that\n 7\n Mr. Parsons is not qualified to represent the class; indeed, as Mr. Abdul-Hameed\n 8\n 9 cannot represent the class due to the atypical nature of his trades, Mr. Parsons is the\n 10\n only qualified investor left standing.\n 11\n 12 As such, Mr. Parsons respectfully requests that the Court appoint him as Lead\n 13 Plaintiff for the putative class and approve his choice of Co-Lead Counsel.\n 14\n 15 ARGUMENT\n 16 I. MR. ABDUL-HAMEED IS AN ATYPICAL AND INADEQUATE\n 17 MOVANT\n 18 As argued in detail in Mr. Parson\u2019s opposition (Dkt. No. 24), Mr. Abdul-\n 19\n Hameed\u2019s options trades both render him unable to adequately represent the class\n 20\n 21 and subject him to unique defenses. Mr. Abdul-Hameed has not since put forth any\n 22\n evidence that he is not an improper options trader. He therefore should not be\n 23\n 24 appointed as Lead Plaintiff.\n\n 25 Of note is that the wealth of authority previously cited by Mr. Parsons in\n 26\n support of the proposition that options traders are inappropriate lead plaintiffs is not\n 27\n 2\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 8 Page ID\n #:411\n\n\n\n\n 1\n the totality of the relevant law; rather, it is just a sampling. Indeed, one court has\n\n 2 noted that \"[the option holder movant] has failed to identify a single instance in\n 3\n which an option holder was deemed to be an appropriate lead plaintiff for an entire\n 4\n 5 securities fraud class action.\" Andrada v. Atherogenics, Inc., 2005 WL 912359, at\n 6\n *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2005). While the movant in Andrada purchased options\n 7\n exclusively, the rationale against appointing him holds with equal strength against\n 8\n 9 a movant such as Mr. Abdul-Hameed, as the issues unique to options traders \u201cwill\n 10\n threaten to become the focus of the litigation,\u201d regardless of whether he also\n 11\n 12 purchased some common stock. Id., citing Weikel v. Tower Semiconducter Ltd.,\n 13 183 F.R.D. 377, 391 (D.N.J.1998); see also Applestein v. Medivation Inc, No. C 10-\n 14\n 00998 MHP, 2010 WL 3749406, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010).\n 15\n 16 Perhaps unsurprisingly, caselaw of a more recent vintage remains in\n 17\n agreement that options traders are inadequate and atypical investors. See e.g. Di\n 18\n 19 Scala v. Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al., 2020 WL 7698321, at *4\n 20 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 28, 2020) (declining to appoint movant as lead plaintiff whose trades\n 21\n heavily involved options because such trades raised unique, substantial questions\n 22\n 23 that threatened to become the focal point of the litigation). Courts have not yet found\n 24\n a way to square the issues raised by the court in Cook v. Allergan PLC \u2013 that\n 25\n 26 \u201cappointing [an] options investor as lead plaintiff very likely would introduce\n\n 27\n 3\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 8 Page ID\n #:412\n\n\n\n\n 1\n factual issues irrelevant to stockholder class members, like strike price, duration,\n\n 2 maturity, volatility, and interest rates, and ... could subject the class to unique\n 3\n defenses, causing unnecessary conflict\u201d \u2013 with the PSLRA\u2019s directive that lead\n 4\n 5 plaintiffs be adequate and typical representatives of a putative class. Compare No.\n 6\n 18 Civ. 12089, 2019 WL 1510894, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (internal\n 7\n citations omitted) with 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n 8\n 9 In addition, some Courts have noted that options trades are uniquely difficult\n 10\n to value under the Lax-Olsten framework employed by Mr. Abdul-Hameed in his\n 11\n 12 opposition brief (Dkt. No. 25), thereby rendering the reliance on such a framework\n 13 to choose an options-trading movant as lead plaintiff to be inappropriate. See\n 14\n Bricklayers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Hecla Min. Co., No. 2:12-CV-\n 15\n 16 00042-BLW, 2012 WL 2872787, at *4 (D. Idaho July 12, 2012) (\u201c[t]he price and\n 17\n value of a single share of common stock is very different from the price and value\n 18\n 19 of a single call option\u2026 therefore, the Court finds that the Olsten\u2013Lax test is not\n 20 helpful in this case.\u201d)\n 21\n However, this is perhaps beside the point. Regardless of whether or not Mr.\n 22\n 23 Abdul-Hameed has accurately calculated his loss, and irrespective of the magnitude\n 24\n of that loss, he is not an appropriate lead plaintiff under the strictures of Rule 23\n 25\n 26 and the PSLRA, because his options trades both render him unable to adequately\n\n 27\n 4\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 8 Page ID\n #:413\n\n\n\n\n 1\n represent the class and subject him to unique defenses. As such, he should be\n\n 2 disqualified as a potential lead plaintiff for the putative class, and the mantle of\n 3\n presumptive lead plaintiff should pass to Mr. Parsons.\n 4\n 5 II. MR. PARSONS\u2019 ADEQUACY AND TYPICALITY HAS NOT BEEN\n CHALLENGED\n 6\n 7 Mr. Parsons, as the movant with the remaining greatest financial interest, is\n 8 the presumptive lead plaintiff for the putative class. This presumption may be\n 9\n rebutted only upon proof that the he either (a) will not fairly and adequately protect\n 10\n 11 the interests of the class; or (b) is subject to unique defenses that render [him]\n 12\n incapable of adequately representing the class. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n 13\n 14 4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Here, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has not challenged either Mr. Parsons\u2019\n\n 15 adequacy or his typicality; rather, he has implicitly conceded that Mr. Parsons is\n 16\n qualified to represent the putative class.\n 17\n 18 There is no evidence before this Court suggesting that Mr. Parsons would be\n 19\n either an inadequate or atypical representative of the putative class. As such, the\n 20\n 21\n presumption under the PSLRA that Mr. Parsons should be appointed lead plaintiff\n\n 22 has not been rebutted, and Mr. Parsons should be appointed lead plaintiff for the\n 23\n class.\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 5\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 8 Page ID\n #:414\n\n\n\n\n 1 CONCLUSION\n 2 For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court grant\n 3\n his motion in full, and deny Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s motion accordingly.\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8 Dated: November 3, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n 9 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.\n 10\n /s/ Laurence M. Rosen\n 11\n Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)\n 12 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 13\n Telephone: (213) 785-2610\n 14 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684\n 15\n Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n\n 16 Counsel for Movant and [Proposed]\n 17 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class\n 18 THE SCHALL LAW FIRM\n 19 Brian Schall (290685)\n 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460\n 20\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n 21 Telephone: (310) 301-3335\n 22\n brian@schallfirm.com\n\n 23 Counsel for Movant and [Proposed]\n 24 Co-Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 6\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 7 of 8 Page ID\n #:415\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF PAGE LIMIT AND WORD COUNT\n 2\n 3\n The undersigned, counsel of record for Rodney Parsons, certifies that this\n brief contains 903 words, which complies with the word limits of L.R. 11-6.1.\n 4\n 5 Executed on November 3, 2025.\n 6\n /s/ Laurence M. Rosen\n 7\n 8\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 7\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 26 Filed 11/03/25 Page 8 of 8 Page ID\n #:416\n\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 2 I, Laurence M. Rosen, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:\n 3 I am the Managing Partner of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., with offices at 355 South\n 4 Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of eighteen.\n 5 On November 3, 2025, I electronically filed the following REPLY\n 6 MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n 7 LEAD PLAINTIFF MOTION with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF\n 8 system which sent notification of such filing to counsel of record.\n 9\n 10 Executed on November 3, 2025\n 11\n 12\n 13\n /s/ Laurence M. Rosen\n Laurence M. Rosen\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 8\n 28\n REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RODNEY PARSONS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF\n MOTION \u2013 Case No. 2:25-CV-07844-RGK- RAO\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:30:41.518630-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046243909","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-03T16:32:13.560355-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.616394-07:00","date_filed":"2025-11-03","time_filed":"16:00:41","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":82,"description":"REPLY in further support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 18 filed by Movant Rodney Parsons. (Rosen, Laurence) (Entered: 11/03/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/442249683/","id":442249683,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71165679/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/456852191/","id":456852191,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71165679/25/omar-abdul-hameed-v-snap-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-27T17:34:51.281341-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.517886-07:00","sha1":"836c01f4b611aa252223b165ea5ef8d695fc26b6","page_count":16,"file_size":328541,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.25.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871/gov.uscourts.cacd.983871.25.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 16 Page ID\n #:393\n\n\n\n 1 LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP\n 2 Adam M. Apton (SBN 316506)\n aapton@zlk.com\n 3 515 South Flower Street\n 4 18 and 19 Floors\n th th\n\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 5 Tel: (213) 985-7290\n 6\n Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n 7 Omar Abdul-Hameed and [Proposed]\n 8 Lead Counsel for the Class\n 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n 10\n 11 OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED, No.: 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n Individually and on Behalf of All\n 12 Others Similarly Situated, OMAR ABDUL-HAMEED\u2019S\n 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND\n Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION\n 14 TO COMPETING MOTION FOR\n 15 v. APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF\n 16 SNAP INC., EVAN T. SPIEGEL, and SELECTION OF COUNSEL\n 17 DEREK ANDERSEN,\n Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner\n 18 Defendants. Date: November 17, 2025\n 19 Time: 9:00 a.m.\n Courtroom: #850\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n i\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 16 Page ID\n #:394\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1\n 3\n 4 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 3\n\n 5 A. The PSLRA Process for Selecting a Lead Plaintiff..................................... 3\n 6\n B. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Is the \u201cMost Adequate\u201d Lead Plaintiff ....................... 5\n 7\n 8 1. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Possesses the Largest Financial Interest. ................. 5\n\n 9 2. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Typicality and Adequacy\n 10\n Requirements. ........................................................................................... 6\n 11\n 12 C. No Movant Can Rebut the Strong Presumption in Favor of Appointing\n\n 13 Mr. Abdul-Hameed as Lead Plaintiff........................................................ 8\n 14\n III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 9\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n ii\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 16 Page ID\n #:395\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2\n Cases\n 3\n 4 Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 5 No. 5:13-CV-01920-EJD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165873 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18,\n 6\n 2013) .................................................................................................................... 4\n 7\n 8 In re Cavanaugh,\n 9 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 4, 9\n 10\n Crawford v. Honig,\n 11\n 12 37 F.3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................. 7\n\n 13 Crews v. Rivian Auto., Inc.,\n 14\n No. 2:22-cv-01524-RGK-Ex, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118795 (C.D. Cal. July 1,\n 15\n 16 2022) .................................................................................................................... 5\n\n 17 Doherty v. Pivotal Software, Inc.,\n 18\n No. 3:19-cv-03589- CRB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195360 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8,\n 19\n 20 2019) .................................................................................................................... 4\n 21 Ferrari v. Gisch,\n 22\n 225 F.R.D. 599 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................... 1, 7\n 23\n 24 Hufnagle v. Rino Int'l Corp.,\n 25 No. CV 10-8695-VBFVBKX, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19771 (C.D. Cal. Feb.\n 26\n 14, 2011), adopted, No. CV 10-1754-VBFVBKX, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n iii\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 16 Page ID\n #:396\n\n\n\n 1 19760 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) ......................................................................... 9\n 2\n Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., No. 97 C 2715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS\n 3\n 4 11866, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 1997) ................................................................ 5\n\n 5 In re Olsten Corp. Securities Litig.,\n 6\n 3 F. Supp. 2d 286 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)..................................................................... 5\n 7\n 8 Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 9 No. 10-CV-03451-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16813 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15,\n 10\n 2011) .................................................................................................................... 1\n 11\n 12 In re Stitch Fix, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 13 393 F. Supp. 3d 833 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................ 4\n 14\n Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc.,\n 15\n 16 67 F. Supp. 2d. 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ............................................................... 2\n\n 17 Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc.,\n 18\n No. 17-cv-04732 VAP (KSx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229452 (C.D. Cal. Sep.\n 19\n 20 29, 2017).............................................................................................................. 5\n 21 Statutes\n 22\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4 ............................................................................................ passim\n 23\n 24 Rules\n 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ............................................................................................ passim\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n iv\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 16 Page ID\n #:397\n\n\n\n 1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n 2\n The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) requires\n 3\n 4 courts to appoint a lead plaintiff in securities class actions asserting violations of\n\n 5 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It instructs courts to appoint as lead plaintiff\n 6\n the movant with the largest financial interest in the litigation, so long as that movant\n 7\n 8 satisfies the adequacy and typicality requirements under Rule 23. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 9 78u-4(a)(3)(B). Under that directive, Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed is the \u201cmost\n 10\n adequate plaintiff\u201d because he commenced this action initially, is the movant with\n 11\n 12 the largest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, and otherwise satisfies\n\n 13 the typicality and adequacy prongs of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23\n 14\n (\u201cRule 23\u201d).\n 15\n 16 The PSLRA states that the movant with the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d that is\n\n 17 otherwise adequate and typical shall be appointed as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7\n 18\n 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Courts in the Ninth Circuit have considered several different\n 19\n 20 methodologies when determining a movant\u2019s financial interest, including the well-\n\n 21 known Olsten/Lax factors: (1) total shares purchased, (2) net shares purchased, (3)\n 22\n net funds expended, and (4) approximate loss suffered. Ferrari v. Gisch, 225 F.R.D.\n 23\n 24 599, 604 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see also Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 10-\n 25 CV-03451-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16813, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15,\n 26\n 2011) (describing different approaches).\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 6 of 16 Page ID\n #:398\n\n\n\n 1 As the following table demonstrates, Mr. Abdul-Hameed possesses the\n 2\n largest financial interest in the action under three of the four Olsten/Lax factors.\n 3\n 4 Movant Gross Net Net Funds Claimed\n\n 5 Shares Shares Expended Losses\n 6\n Purchased Retained\n 7\n 8 Omar Abdul- 2,220,000 720,000 $14,240,189.93 $5,594,523.46\n\n 9 Hameed\n 10\n Rodney Parsons 2,230,000 460,000 $4,407,271.06 $867,502.95\n 11\n 12 See ECF Nos. 19-4 and 23-3.\n 13\n With over 6 times more losses than the only other movant, Rodney Parsons,\n 14\n 15 there can be no dispute that Mr. Abdul-Hameed holds the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d\n 16 in the action and is, therefore, presumptively the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d for the\n 17\n purpose of serving as lead plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n 18\n 19 4(a)(3)(B).\n 20 Moreover, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has made a preliminary showing of the\n 21\n typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23, which is all that is required at this\n 22\n 23 stage in the litigation. Takeda v. Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d. 1129, 1136\n 24 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Mr. Abdul-Hameed was the initial plaintiff who commenced this\n 25\n action on behalf of himself and all other class members who acquired Snap, Inc.\n 26\n 27 (\u201cSnap\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d) securities between April 29, 2025, to August 5, 2025,\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 7 of 16 Page ID\n #:399\n\n\n\n 1 inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d). Consequently, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has a\n 2\n demonstrated track record of representing the class in this case and, of course, does\n 3\n 4 not have any interests adverse to it.\n 5 With the largest financial interest in the outcome of the action and having\n 6\n made the preliminary showing of typicality and adequacy, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is\n 7\n 8 entitled to the presumption of being the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n 9 4(a)(3)(B). For these reasons, Mr. Abdul-Hameed respectfully requests that the\n 10\n Court grant his motion in its entirety and deny Mr. Parsons\u2019 competing motion.\n 11\n 12 II. ARGUMENT\n\n 13 A. The PSLRA Process for Selecting a Lead Plaintiff\n 14\n Under the PSLRA, this Court is directed to \u201cappoint as lead plaintiff the\n 15\n 16 member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be\n 17 the most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.\u201d 15\n 18\n U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA establishes the procedure for appointment\n 19\n 20 of the lead plaintiff in \u201ceach private action arising under [the Exchange Act] that is\n 21 brought as a plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d\n 22\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a) and (a)(3)(B).\n 23\n 24 In interpreting the PSLRA, the Ninth Circuit formulated a clear process for\n 25 selecting a lead plaintiff. See Doherty v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-03589-\n 26\n CRB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195360, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019); In re\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 8 of 16 Page ID\n #:400\n\n\n\n 1 Stitch Fix, Inc. Sec. Litig., 393 F. Supp. 3d 833 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Abrams v. Intuitive\n 2\n Surgical, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-01920-EJD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165873, at *5\n 3\n 4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729-30 (9th Cir.\n 5 2002)). \u201c[T]he courts must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs,\n 6\n determine which has the most to gain from the lawsuit, and determine whether that\n 7\n 8 plaintiff satisfies Rule 23, particularly its typicality and adequacy requirements.\u201d\n 9 Id. (citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730). The movant with the largest financial\n 10\n interest and satisfies Rule 23, is then the \u201cpresumptive lead plaintiff.\u201d See 15 U.S.C.\n 11\n 12 \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. \u201cIf the plaintiff with the\n 13 greatest financial stake does not satisfy the Rule 23(a) criteria, the court must repeat\n 14\n the inquiry, this time considering the plaintiff with the next-largest financial stake,\n 15\n 16 until it finds a plaintiff who is both willing to serve and satisfies the requirements\n 17 of Rule 23.\u201d Id. Third, the court must then consider any competing lead plaintiff\n 18\n movants attempts to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that it satisfies\n 19\n 20 Rule 23. Id.\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 4\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 9 of 16 Page ID\n #:401\n\n\n\n 1 B. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Is the \u201cMost Adequate\u201d Lead Plaintiff\n 2\n 1. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Possesses the Largest Financial Interest.\n 3\n 4 The PSLRA provides a presumption that the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d to\n\n 5 serve as lead plaintiff is the movant with the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief\n 6\n sought by the class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Mr. Abdul-Hameed is\n 7\n 8 entitled to that presumption because, relative to the other movant, Mr. Abdul-\n 9 Hameed\u2019s losses are far greater. In accordance with In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig.\n 10\n and Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., \u201ccourts use the Lax-Olsten four-\n 11\n 12 factor test to approximate economic losses: (1) the number of shares purchased\n 13 during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class\n 14\n period; (3) the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the\n 15\n 16 approximate losses suffered during the class period.\u201d Crews v. Rivian Auto., Inc.,\n 17 No. 2:22-cv-01524-RGK-Ex, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118795, at *9 (C.D. Cal. July\n 18\n 1, 2022) (internal quotations removed). see also Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance\n 19\n 20 Corp., No. 97 C 2715, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11866, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6,\n 21 1997); In re Olsten Corp. Securities Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).\n 22\n Of the four factors, \u201c[c]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have tended to give the final\n 23\n 24 factor the most emphasis.\u201d Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc.,\n 25 No. 17-cv-04732 VAP (KSx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229452, at *14 (C.D. Cal.\n 26\n Sep. 29, 2017). In this instance, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is the movant with the largest\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 5\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 10 of 16 Page ID\n #:402\n\n\n\n 1 loss under three of the four factors, including the most important factor,\n 2\n approximate loss suffered.\n 3\n 4 Movant Gross Net Net Funds Claimed\n\n 5 Shares Shares Expended Losses\n 6\n Purchased Retained\n 7\n 8 Omar Abdul- 2,220,000 720,000 $14,240,189.93 $5,594,523.46\n\n 9 Hameed\n 10\n Rodney Parsons 2,230,000 460,000 $4,407,271.06 $867,502.95\n 11\n 12 See ECF Nos. 19-4 and 23-3.\n 13\n As compared to the Mr. Parsons, Mr. Abdul-Hameed retained 260,000 more\n 14\n 15 shares, expended nearly $10,000,000 more, and lost $5,594,523.46 amounting to\n 16 more than 6 times Mr. Parsons\u2019 loss. Accordingly, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has the\n 17\n largest financial interest in this matter.\n 18\n 19 2. Mr. Abdul-Hameed Satisfies Rule 23\u2019s Typicality and\n 20 Adequacy Requirements.\n 21\n Not only does Mr. Abdul-Hameed possess the largest financial interest of all\n 22\n 23 movants pursuant to the PSLRA and the widely accepted Olsten/Lax Factors, but\n 24 he also satisfies the typicality and adequacy prongs of Rule 23, requiring his\n 25\n appointment as lead plaintiff.\n 26\n 27 Typicality exists where the claims of the representative parties \u201carise from\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 6\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 11 of 16 Page ID\n #:403\n\n\n\n 1 the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the\n 2\n class members and are based on the same legal theory.\u201d Ferrari, 225 F.R.D. 599 at\n 3\n 4 606 (internal quotations removed). Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s claims are typical of those\n 5 of other Class members because, like other Class members, he acquired Snap\n 6\n securities during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated by Defendants\u2019\n 7\n 8 misrepresentations and/or omissions that form the basis of the action. Moreover,\n 9 Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s claims are based on the same legal theory and arise from the\n 10\n same events and course of conduct as the Class\u2019s claims. Indeed, Mr. Abdul-\n 11\n 12 Hameed commenced this action to begin with, thereby guaranteeing his typicality\n 13 relative to the Class at large. See ECF No. 1.\n 14\n To satisfy the adequacy requirement at this stage of the proceedings, Mr.\n 15\n 16 Abdul-Hameed must make a preliminary showing that his interests are clearly\n 17 aligned with the members of the putative Class and whether there is evidence of any\n 18\n antagonism between his interests and other members of the Class. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n 19\n 20 4(a)(3)(B); see Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation\n 21 omitted). Once again, given his status as the initial complainant and the fact that the\n 22\n case was filed on his behalf, Mr. Abdul-Hameed by definition does not have any\n 23\n 24 conflicts with other Class Members.\n 25 Finally, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has further demonstrated his adequacy by\n 26\n attesting that he is ready, willing, and able to oversee this litigation. Mr. Abdul-\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 12 of 16 Page ID\n #:404\n\n\n\n 1 Hameed considers himself to be a sophisticated individual. Mr. Abdul-Hameed has\n 2\n a background in engineering. For the past 10 years, he has been managing his own\n 3\n 4 portfolio. Mr. Abdul-Hameed is otherwise retired and spends his time in Europe.\n 5 Further, in his certification, Mr. Abdul-Hameed states his familiarity with, and\n 6\n willingness to take on, the duties of a lead plaintiff and class representative under\n 7\n 8 the PSLRA and Rule 23. See ECF No. 23-2 (PSLRA Certification).\n 9 Mr. Abdul-Hameed, therefore, is the movant for lead plaintiff that has the\n 10\n largest financial interest in the action and otherwise meets the requirements of Rule\n 11\n 12 23. Accordingly, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is entitled to the presumption that he is the\n 13 \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d and that he should be appointed as the lead plaintiff. 15\n 14\n U.S.C \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).\n 15\n 16 C. No Movant Can Rebut the Strong Presumption in Favor of\n\n 17 Appointing Mr. Abdul-Hameed as Lead Plaintiff.\n 18\n By having timely filed a motion for appointment as the lead plaintiff,\n 19\n 20 possessing the largest financial interest in the action of all movants, and sufficiently\n 21 making a preliminary, prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy, Mr. Abdul-\n 22\n Hameed has fulfilled the PSLRA\u2019s requirements to become the \u201cmost adequate\n 23\n 24 plaintiff.\u201d See 15 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) (discussing requirements to become\n 25 the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d). Mr. Abdul-Hameed, therefore, is entitled to the\n 26\n presumption that he shall be appointed as the lead plaintiff in the action. See 15\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 8\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 13 of 16 Page ID\n #:405\n\n\n\n 1 U.S.C. \u00a778u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) (stating the court \u201cshall appoint as the lead plaintiff\u201d the\n 2\n \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d). Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s presumption as the \u201cmost\n 3\n 4 adequate plaintiff\u201d may only be rebutted upon proof by a class member that Mr.\n 5 Abdul-Hameed \u201cwill not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class\u201d or\n 6\n \u201cis subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately\n 7\n 8 representing the class.\u201d15 U.S.C \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); In re Cavanaugh, 306\n 9 F.3d at 741. Absent proof rebutting the presumption, Mr. Abdul-Hameed is entitled\n 10\n to be appointed as the lead plaintiff. See Hufnagle v. Rino Int'l Corp., No. CV 10-\n 11\n 12 8695-VBFVBKX, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19771, at *16 -26 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14,\n 13 2011), adopted, No. CV 10-1754-VBFVBKX, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19760 (C.D.\n 14\n Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) (appointing the most adequate plaintiff where competing\n 15\n 16 movants failed to submit proof of unique defense). This is something that Mr.\n 17 Parsons, the only other movant, cannot do. Accordingly, Mr. Abdul-Hameed\u2019s\n 18\n motion should be granted in its entirety.\n 19\n 20 III. CONCLUSION\n 21 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Abdul-Hameed respectfully requests that the\n 22\n Court grant his Motion and enter an order: (1) appointing Mr. Abdul-Hameed as\n 23\n 24 Lead Plaintiff; (2) approving his selection of Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel for\n 25 the Class; and (3) granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 9\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 14 of 16 Page ID\n #:406\n\n\n\n 1\n Dated: October 27, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n 2\n LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP\n 3\n 4 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton (SBN 316506)\n 5 aapton@zlk.com\n 6 515 South Flower Street\n 18th and 19th Floors\n 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071\n 8 Tel: (213) 985-7290\n\n 9 Lead Counsel for Omar Abdul-Hameed and\n 10 [Proposed] Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 10\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 15 of 16 Page ID\n #:407\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT\n 2\n The undersigned, counsel of record for Omar Abdul-Hameed, certifies that\n 3\n 4 this brief contains 2,545 words, which complies with the word limit of L.R. 11-6.1\n 5 and Paragraph 6 of this Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases\n 6\n dated May 2023. Executed on this 27th day of October 2025.\n 7\n 8 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 11\n\fCase 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 16 of 16 Page ID\n #:408\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 3\n 4 I, Adam M. Apton, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:\n\n 5 I am a partner attorney at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, with offices at 515 South\n 6\n Flower Street, 18th and 19th Floors, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of\n 7\n 8 eighteen.\n 9 On October 27, 2025, I electronically filed the following OMAR ABDUL-\n 10\n HAMEED\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN\n 11\n 12 OPPOSITION TO COMPETING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS\n 13 LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL with\n 14\n the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such\n 15\n 16 filing to counsel of record. Executed on this 27th day of October 2025.\n 17\n 18 /s/ Adam M. Apton\n Adam M. Apton\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n Case No. 2:25-cv-07844-RGK-RAO\n 12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T05:30:56.253077-07:00","document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031046190856","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-10-27T17:34:51.237384-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T01:42:34.411778-07:00","date_filed":"2025-10-27","time_filed":"17:18:10","entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-10-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":79,"description":"MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff 18 filed by Plaintiff Omar Abdul-Hameed. (Apton, Adam) (Entered: 10/27/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71165679&page_size=40"}