{"cached_at":"2026-09-05T10:50:10.721382+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72134362","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","id":72134362,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/njd/","court_id":"njd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9389/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-12T16:59:26.817756-08:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T08:59:46.712309-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jamel K. Semper","referred_to_str":"Leda D. Wettre","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":"2026-01-12","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-04-22","case_name_short":"MASAITIS","case_name":"MASAITIS v. COREWEAVE, INC.","case_name_full":"","slug":"masaitis-v-coreweave-inc","docket_number":"2:26-cv-00355","docket_number_core":"2600355","docket_number_raw":"2:26-cv-00355","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JKS","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"LDW","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"589838","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":"2026-01-12T16:59:26.808185-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940847/","id":17940847,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:38.133162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:38.133178-07:00","name":"ANASTASIA SYTINA","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940846/","id":17940846,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:38.062289-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:38.062306-07:00","name":"CHEN XIE","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940845/","id":17940845,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647679/","attorney_id":13647679,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647680/","attorney_id":13647680,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.913783-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.913798-07:00","name":"DANIEL R. OROS","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940844/","id":17940844,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833559/","attorney_id":11833559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833559/","attorney_id":11833559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.859078-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.859098-07:00","name":"David Lai","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940843/","id":17940843,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833559/","attorney_id":11833559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833559/","attorney_id":11833559,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.732298-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.732318-07:00","name":"John Kim","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940842/","id":17940842,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833558/","attorney_id":11833558,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833558/","attorney_id":11833558,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Law Office of Jan Meyer & Associates\n1029 Teaneck Road\nTeaneck, NJ 07666\n201-862-9600","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.433601-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.433617-07:00","name":"Smitha Idikuda","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940841/","id":17940841,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833557/","attorney_id":11833557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833557/","attorney_id":11833557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.366253-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.366272-07:00","name":"Robert Ormsby","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940840/","id":17940840,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833557/","attorney_id":11833557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833557/","attorney_id":11833557,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.263217-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:37.263233-07:00","name":"Yuri Odarchuk","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940839/","id":17940839,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833556/","attorney_id":11833556,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:36.621989-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:36.622005-07:00","name":"Kok Ying Kei","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940838/","id":17940838,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833554/","attorney_id":11833554,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833554/","attorney_id":11833554,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833555/","attorney_id":11833555,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:34.728168-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:34.728189-07:00","name":"Frank Fish","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940837/","id":17940837,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833553/","attorney_id":11833553,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833553/","attorney_id":11833553,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:34.474301-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:34.474321-07:00","name":"M.D. Richard A. Price","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940836/","id":17940836,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833550/","attorney_id":11833550,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833550/","attorney_id":11833550,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833551/","attorney_id":11833551,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833552/","attorney_id":11833552,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:33.281711-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:33.281731-07:00","name":"Carlos E. Villalobos","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940835/","id":17940835,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833549/","attorney_id":11833549,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833549/","attorney_id":11833549,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:33.203328-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:33.203343-07:00","name":"Katherine Pickeral","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17940834/","id":17940834,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833549/","attorney_id":11833549,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833549/","attorney_id":11833549,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T06:37:32.985573-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T06:37:32.985586-07:00","name":"Gregory Pickeral","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17125745/","id":17125745,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.622962-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.622973-08:00","name":"BRANNIN MCBEE","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17125744/","id":17125744,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.607344-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.607358-08:00","name":"NITIN AGRAWAL","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17125743/","id":17125743,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.586815-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.586829-08:00","name":"MICHAEL INTRATOR","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17125742/","id":17125742,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11833560/","attorney_id":11833560,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647681/","attorney_id":13647681,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647682/","attorney_id":13647682,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647683/","attorney_id":13647683,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647684/","attorney_id":13647684,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13647685/","attorney_id":13647685,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.567578-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.567593-08:00","name":"COREWEAVE, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17125741/","id":17125741,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11170718/","attorney_id":11170718,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","docket_id":72134362,"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":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.430246-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-12T21:04:59.430260-08:00","name":"RAYMOND MASAITIS","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465593456/","id":465593456,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480801318/","id":480801318,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:48.228276-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:39.004832-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:48.210116-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.978575-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pro Hac Vice counsel, JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN,J. ALEXANDER HOOD, II for DANIEL R. OROS,JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN,J. ALEXANDER HOOD, II for ANASTASIA SYTINA,JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN,J. ALEXANDER HOOD, II for CHEN XIE, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (pm, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465593455/","id":465593455,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480801317/","id":480801317,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:47.962788-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.743195-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:47.943309-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.719952-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pro Hac Vice counsel, MICHELE D. JOHNSON,ANDREW B. CLUBOK,JOSHUA G. HAMILTON,THOMAS GIBLIN,ANASTASIA PYRINIS for NITIN AGRAWAL,MICHELE D. JOHNSON,ANDREW B. CLUBOK,JOSHUA G. HAMILTON,THOMAS GIBLIN,ANASTASIA PYRINIS for COREWEAVE, INC.,MICHELE D. JOHNSON,ANDREW B. CLUBOK,JOSHUA G. HAMILTON,THOMAS GIBLIN,ANASTASIA PYRINIS for MICHAEL INTRATOR,MICHELE D. JOHNSON,ANDREW B. CLUBOK,JOSHUA G. HAMILTON,THOMAS GIBLIN,ANASTASIA PYRINIS for BRANNIN MCBEE, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (mj)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465593454/","id":465593454,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480801316/","id":480801316,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:47.478656-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.279556-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:47.459822-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.243927-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set Deadlines as to 40 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 39 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion set for 5/4/2026 before Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (ld)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465593453/","id":465593453,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480801315/","id":480801315,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:46.467651-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:36.995998-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T03:09:46.448837-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:36.958008-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set Deadlines as to 28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion set for 4/20/2026 before Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (lag, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461555183/","id":461555183,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476649200/","id":476649200,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-22T06:03:53.145155-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T06:03:53.151298-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice counsel added","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T06:03:53.131569-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T06:03:53.131579-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"08:37:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461495083/","id":461495083,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476587723/","id":476587723,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/49/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-21T13:02:43.474483-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.945778-07:00","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":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023834937","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T13:02:43.444157-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.914948-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"15:36:01","entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.003","pacer_sequence_number":259,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice J. Alexander Hood II to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17333240.) (CALANDRA, BRIAN) (Entered: 04/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461493972/","id":461493972,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476586483/","id":476586483,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/48/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-21T12:41:22.122318-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.863595-07:00","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":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023834918","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T12:41:22.083219-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.834229-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"15:34:23","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.002","pacer_sequence_number":257,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Jeremy A. Lieberman to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17333221.) (CALANDRA, BRIAN) (Entered: 04/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461480241/","id":461480241,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476572401/","id":476572401,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/47/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-21T11:39:38.727502-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.796753-07:00","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":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023834220","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice AND Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T11:39:38.702063-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.763981-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"14:28:33","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":254,"description":"ORDER granting 39 40 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jeremy A. Lieberman and J. Alexander Hood II. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre on 4/21/2026. (sks) (Entered: 04/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460865855/","id":460865855,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475941964/","id":475941964,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-15T12:02:32.519753-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-15T12:02:32.525846-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice counsel added","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-15T12:02:32.505594-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-15T12:02:32.505606-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-15","time_filed":"14:47:08","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460217445/","id":460217445,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475271862/","id":475271862,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/46/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-09T09:01:53.683709-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.689864-07:00","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":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023790416","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-09T09:01:53.597961-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.654674-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":"11:44:00","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.005","pacer_sequence_number":230,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Anastasia Pyrinis to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17291439.) (MCDONOUGH, KEVIN) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460215003/","id":460215003,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475269311/","id":475269311,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/42/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-09T08:40:08.701969-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.444326-07:00","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":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023790189","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-09T08:40:08.653266-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.392620-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":"11:09:23","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":222,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Michele D. Johnson to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17290951.) (MCDONOUGH, KEVIN) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460214919/","id":460214919,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475269226/","id":475269226,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/43/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:58.824498-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.505264-07:00","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":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023790328","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:58.783859-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.485754-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":"11:26:57","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":224,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Andrew B. Clubok to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17291294.) (MCDONOUGH, KEVIN) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460214909/","id":460214909,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475269216/","id":475269216,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/44/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:57.844668-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.556559-07:00","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":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023790342","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:57.806260-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.534959-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":"11:29:50","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.003","pacer_sequence_number":226,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Joshua G. Hamilton to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17291321.) (MCDONOUGH, KEVIN) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460214897/","id":460214897,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475269204/","id":475269204,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/45/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:56.494427-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.620514-07:00","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":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023790366","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-09T08:39:56.457337-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.599623-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-09","time_filed":"11:32:43","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-09.004","pacer_sequence_number":228,"description":"Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Thomas Giblin to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 250 receipt number ANJDC-17291347.) (MCDONOUGH, KEVIN) (Entered: 04/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459910016/","id":459910016,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474953499/","id":474953499,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/41/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-07T07:37:16.255621-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.346021-07:00","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":"119023778968","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T07:37:16.224166-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.302758-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-07","time_filed":"10:35:54","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":220,"description":"ORDER granting 28 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Michael D. Johnson, Andrew B. Clubok, Joshua G. Hamilton, Thomas Giblin and Anastasia Pyrinis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre on 4/7/2026. (sm) (Entered: 04/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459295061/","id":459295061,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474318605/","id":474318605,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-01T07:40:52.241291-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-01T07:40:52.249125-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-01T07:40:52.225150-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-01T07:40:52.225167-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-01","time_filed":"10:18:57","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459139651/","id":459139651,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474158726/","id":474158726,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/40/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-31T08:39:52.875376-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.204984-07:00","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":"119023753312","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T08:39:52.849724-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.158826-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"11:03:02","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.002","pacer_sequence_number":214,"description":"MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by DANIEL R. OROS, ANASTASIA SYTINA, CHEN XIE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Brian Calandra, # 2 Certification of J. Alexander Hood II, # 3 Exhibit Schedule A, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(CALANDRA, BRIAN) (Entered: 03/31/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459128967/","id":459128967,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474147874/","id":474147874,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/39/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-31T08:03:29.557732-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:38.056289-07:00","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":"119023753236","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-31T08:03:29.523343-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:37.959700-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-31","time_filed":"10:57:42","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":212,"description":"MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by DANIEL R. OROS, ANASTASIA SYTINA, CHEN XIE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Brian Calandra, # 2 Certification of Jeremy A. Lieberman, # 3 Exhibit Schedule A, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(CALANDRA, BRIAN) (Entered: 03/31/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459098590/","id":459098590,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474116630/","id":474116630,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/36/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-30T20:41:16.135588-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:37.661481-07:00","sha1":"393585d50eb8d4d7d1af535708db6d3d5f4594aa","page_count":21,"file_size":282910,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.njd.589838/gov.uscourts.njd.589838.36.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.589838/gov.uscourts.njd.589838.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 21 PageID:\n 1304\n\n\n\nPOMERANTZ LLP\nBrian Calandra\n600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\nTelephone: (212) 661-1100\nFacsimile: (917) 463-1044\nbcalandra@pomlaw.com\n\nCounsel for the CoreWeave Investor\nGroup and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel\nfor the Class\n\n[Additional counsel on signature page.]\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n RAYMOND MASAITIS, Case No. 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW\n Individually and on Behalf of All\n Others Similarly Situated, Hon. Jamel K. Semper\n\n Plaintiff, REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW\n IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n v. MOTION OF THE COREWEAVE\n INVESTOR GROUP FOR\n COREWEAVE, INC., MICHAEL APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n INTRATOR, NITIN AGRAWAL, and PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF\n BRANNIN MCBEE, SELECTION OF CO-LEAD\n COUNSEL\n Defendants.\n Motion Date: April 6, 2026\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 21 PageID:\n 1305\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nARGUMENT .............................................................................................................4\n\n I. The CoreWeave Investor Group Is an Appropriate Group and\n Adequate Under Rule 23 .......................................................................4\n\n II. Mr. Fish\u2019s Conduct in this Litigation and History of Unrelated\n Misconduct Render Him Inadequate Under Rule 23 ............................7\n\n III. Dr. Price\u2019s Options Trading Makes Him Atypical Under Rule 23\n and Subject to Unique Defenses..........................................................13\n\nCONCLUSION ........................................................................................................15\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................17\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 21 PageID:\n 1306\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\nCases\n\nAguilar v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.,\n No. 2:17-CV-6454-KM-MAH, 2018 WL 1960444\n (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2018) ...................................................................................... 5, 7\n\nBasic, Inc. v. Levinson,\n 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ............................................................................................ 15\n\nBroadfoot v. Barrick Gold Corp. et al.,\n 17 Civ. 3507 (NRB), 2017 WL 3738444 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) ................... 12\n\nCook v. Allergn PLC,\n No. 18-cv-12089, 2019 WL 1510894 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) .................. 3, 13\nGoines v. Celsius Network, LLC,\n No. 22-cv-04560 (KM) (ESK), 2023 WL 2945897\n (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2023) .......................................................................................... 6\n\nIn re Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 17-CV-4846 (WFK) (PK), 2017 WL 6403513\n (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017) ..................................................................................... 5\nIn re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 08 Civ. 08761 (AHK), 2009 WL 132116\n (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009).................................................................................... 13\n\nIn re Enzymotec Ltd. Sec. Litig.,\n No. CIV.A. 14-5556, 2015 WL 918535 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2015) ...................3, 4, 5\n\nIn re Network Assocs. Secs. Litig.,\n 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .................................................................. 8\n\nInchen Huang v. Depomed, Inc.,\n 289 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................ 7\n\nJaramillo v. Dish Network Corp.,\n No. 23-cv-00734-GPG-SKC, 2023 WL 5312062\n (D. Colo. Aug. 16, 2023) ................................................................................ 3, 14\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 21 PageID:\n 1307\n\n\n\nLawless v. Aurora Cannabis Inc.,\n No. CV-20-13819, 2021 WL 2850451 (D.N.J. July 8, 2021) .......................... 2, 4\nLouisiana Mun. Police Emps.\u2019 Ret. Sys. v. Green Mountain Coffee\n Roasters, Inc.,\n No. 2:11-CV-289, 2012 WL 12985571 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2012) ........................... 5\nNewman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs.,\n 209 F.R.D. 499 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ........................................................................... 8\nRao v. Quorum Health Corp.,\n 221 F. Supp. 3d 987 (M.D. Tenn. 2016) ............................................................ 12\n\nSchleicher v. Wendt,\n No. 1:02-cv-1332-DFH-TAB, 2009 WL 761157\n (S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2009) ...................................................................................... 8\nShi v. SINA Corp.,\n No. 05 Civ. 2154 (NRB) et al., 2005 WL 1561438\n (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2005) ........................................................................................ 8\n\nSneed v. AcelRx Pharms., Inc.,\n No. 21-cv-04353, 2021 WL 5964596 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021) ..............2, 8, 12\n\nTeroganesian v. Southwest Airlines Co.,\n No. 4:23-cv-00115, 2023 WL 4565464 (S.D. Tex. July 15, 2023) ................ 3, 13\n\nVillare v. Abiomed, Inc.,\n No. 19 Civ. 7319 (ER) et al., 2020 WL 3497285\n (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020)...................................................................................... 8\nStatutes\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4................................................................................................. 1, 12\nPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ............................................passim\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 23 ..............................................................................................passim\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 21 PageID:\n 1308\n\n\n\n Movant the CoreWeave Investor Group1 respectfully submits this Reply\n\nMemorandum of Law in further support of its motion for appointment as Lead\n\nPlaintiff and approval of its selection of Pomerantz and BG&G as Co-Lead Counsel\n\n(Dkt. No. 22).2\n\n As discussed at length in its moving and opposition briefs (Dkt. Nos. 22-2,\n\n35), the CoreWeave Investor Group is the presumptive \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d\n\nunder the PSLRA because (1) it has alleged the largest financial interest in this\n\nAction among eligible lead plaintiff candidates, having incurred losses of\n\napproximately $1.09 million in connection with its Class Period transactions in\n\nCoreWeave securities (see Dkt. No. No. 22-3 at *6), and (2) it strongly satisfies Rule\n\n23\u2019s typicality and adequacy requirements. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii).\n\n Two competing movants \u2013 Mr. Fish and Dr. Price \u2013 contest the CoreWeave\n\nInvestor Group\u2019s appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Mr. Fish claims to be the\n\npresumptive \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d by virtue of claiming the largest financial\n\n\n\n1\n All capitalized terms herein are defined in the CoreWeave Investor Group\u2019s\nmoving or opposition briefs, unless otherwise indicated. See Dkt. Nos. 22-2, 35.\n2\n On the statutory motion deadline, six other movants filed competing motions for\nappointment as Lead Plaintiff: (1) Yuri Odarchuk and Robert Ormsby (Dkt. No. 17);\n(2) Smith Idikuda (Dkt. No. 19); (3) Gregory and Katherine Pickeral (Dkt. No. 6);\n(4) John Kim and David Lai (Dkt. No. 21); (5) Carlos Villalobos (Dkt. No. 10); and\n(6) Kok Ying Kei (Dkt. No. 15). Each of the foregoing movants subsequently filed\nnotices stating their non-opposition to the competing motions, acknowledging that\nthey did not appear to meet the PSLRA\u2019s \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d criteria, or\nwithdrawing their motion See Dkt. Nos. 25, 27, 29-30, 31, 33.\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 21 PageID:\n 1309\n\n\n\ninterest among the competing movants. See Dkt. No. 32 at 2-3. However, as set\n\nforth at length in both the CoreWeave Investor Group\u2019s opposition brief (see Dkt.\n\nNo. 35 at 5-6, 17-24) and Dr. Price\u2019s opposition brief (see Dkt. No. 34 at 2-3, 6-17),\n\nMr. Fish\u2019s conduct in this litigation and other PSLRA actions, and his undisclosed\n\nhistory of misconduct unrelated to this litigation, render him inadequate under Rule\n\n23 \u2013 thereby mandating denial of his motion irrespective of the quantum of his\n\nfinancial interest. See, e.g., Sneed v. AcelRx Pharms., Inc., No. 21-cv-04353, 2021\n\nWL 5964596, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021) (denying lead plaintiff motion due to\n\nmovant\u2019s undisclosed embezzlement conviction, emphasizing \u201cserious concerns\n\nabout [the movant\u2019s] candor to his attorney and [the court] regarding his\n\nmisconduct\u201d).\n\n Dr. Price, for his part, argues that the CoreWeave Investor Group is an\n\nimproper investor group, and thus inadequate under Rule 23. Yet courts in the Third\n\nCircuit and this District routinely appoint similarly constituted groups to serve as\n\nLead Plaintiffs in PSLRA actions. See, e.g., Lawless v. Aurora Cannabis Inc., No.\n\nCV-20-13819 (RMB/SAK), 2021 WL 2850451, at *5 (D.N.J. July 8, 2021)\n\n(appointing \u201crelatively small group of three individual investors\u201d as lead plaintiff,\n\n\u201cnot[ing] that the appointment of a small group of individuals as lead plaintiff has\n\ncertain advantages over the appointment of a single individual, including avoiding\n\nthe re-determination of lead plaintiff if an individual lead plaintiff is unable to serve\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 21 PageID:\n 1310\n\n\n\nor is deemed inadequate after appointment\u201d); In re Enzymotec Ltd. Sec. Litig., No.\n\nCIV.A. 14-5556, 2015 WL 918535, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2015) (appointing as lead\n\nplaintiff a group of three investors).\n\n Moreover, Dr. Price himself is in any event disqualified from consideration\n\nbecause he incurred all of his Class Period investment losses in connection with\n\ntransactions in CoreWeave option contracts, purchasing exactly zero shares of\n\nCoreWeave common stock on the open market. Moreover, the overwhelming\n\nmajority of his options trading reflected an expectation that CoreWeave\u2019s share price\n\nwould not increase in value. These facts fact makes him highly atypical of the Class\n\nhe seeks to represent in this Action, as well as subject to disqualifying unique\n\ndefenses. See, e.g., Cook v. Allergn PLC, No. 18-cv-12089, 2019 WL 1510894, at\n\n*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019); Teroganesian v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 4:23-cv-\n\n00115, 2023 WL 4565464, at *5 (S.D. Tex. July 15, 2023); Jaramillo v. Dish\n\nNetwork Corp., No. 23-cv-00734-GPG-SKC, 2023 WL 5312062, at *5 (D. Colo.\n\nAug. 16, 2023).\n\n For the reasons set forth herein, the CoreWeave Investor Group thus\n\nrespectfully submits that the Court should grant its motion in its entirety and deny\n\nthe competing motions.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 21 PageID:\n 1311\n\n\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI. The CoreWeave Investor Group Is an Appropriate Group and Adequate\n Under Rule 23\n\n Only one of the two competing movants, Dr. Price, contests the CoreWeave\n\nInvestor Group\u2019s adequacy. Specifically, Dr. Price claims that the group is\n\ninadequate under Rule 23, citing primarily the fact that the members of the group\n\ndid not know one another prior to this litigation and mischaracterizing the group as\n\nbeing \u201ccobbled together for the sole purposes of aggregating losses[.]\u201d Dkt. No. 34\n\nat 17.\n\n Dr. Price\u2019s focus on absence of a pre-litigation relationship is misplaced, as\n\nthere is no such requirement in either the text of the PSLRA or federal securities\n\njurisprudence. Courts, including those in the Third Circuit and District of New\n\nJersey, routinely appoint groups of previously unrelated investors to leadership roles\n\nin PSLRA actions. See, e.g., Aurora Cannabis, 2021 WL 2850451, at *5 (appointing\n\n\u201crelatively small group of three individual investors\u201d without a pre-litigation\n\nrelationship as lead plaintiff, \u201cnot[ing] that the appointment of a small group of\n\nindividuals as lead plaintiff has certain advantages over the appointment of a single\n\nindividual, including avoiding the re-determination of lead plaintiff if an individual\n\nlead plaintiff is unable to serve or is deemed inadequate after appointment\u201d);\n\nEnzymotec, 2015 WL 918535, at *4 (same, \u201cnot[ing] that the Third Circuit has held\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 21 PageID:\n 1312\n\n\n\nin no uncertain terms that there is nothing in the PSLRA preventing even a group\n\nof unrelated persons from serving as lead plaintiff\u201d) (emphasis in original).\n\n Further, contrary to Dr. Price\u2019s claims, courts routinely do consider precisely\n\nthe type of Joint Declaration that the CoreWeave Investor Group has submitted here\n\n(see generally Dkt. No. 22-3 at *35-*42) as evidence of Rule 23 adequacy, as such\n\nJoint Declarations demonstrate the group members\u2019 cohesiveness and readiness to\n\nwork collaboratively. See, e.g., Aguilar v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-6454-\n\nKM-MAH, 2018 WL 1960444, at *9-11 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2018) (finding adequacy\n\nof group of three investors supported by, inter alia, their limited size and their\n\nsubmission of a joint declaration, and collecting cases in the Third Circuit and\n\nthroughout the country that found similar declarations support a group\u2019s appointment\n\nas lead plaintiff); Enzymotec, 2015 WL 918535, at *4 (appointing investor group as\n\nlead plaintiff under the PSLRA because of, inter alia, \u201cthe representations made in\n\n[the group]\u2019s joint declaration . . . and [its] selection of experienced and learned\n\ncounsel\u201d); In re Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-CV-4846 (WFK) (PK),\n\n2017 WL 6403513, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017) (appointing group of four\n\nunrelated investors that submitted a declaration attesting \u201cit is prepared to work\n\ncooperatively to serve the best interests of the class,\u201d and finding the group is not\n\n\u201cso large as to be unwieldly and impracticable\u201d); Louisiana Mun. Police Emps.\u2019 Ret.\n\nSys. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-289, 2012 WL\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 21 PageID:\n 1313\n\n\n\n 12985571, at *3 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2012) (finding joint declaration \u201csufficient to assure\n\n the Court that the [lead] plaintiffs will effectively manage the litigation\u201d).\n\n Dr. Price\u2019s assertion that the CoreWeave Investor Group was formed purely\n\n to aggregate its members\u2019 losses is at odds with the record. In their Joint Declaration,\n\n the CoreWeave Investor Group\u2019s members expressly attested to their reasons for\n\n opting to work together in this litigation:\n\n We each determined that we could maximize the Class\u2019s recovery by\n pooling our respective resources and experience by jointly seeking\n appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. After reviewing the allegations\n pleaded in the complaint, and consulting with our counsel, we each\n independently determined to seek joint appointment as Co-Lead\n Plaintiffs and subsequently approved the filing of a joint motion\n seeking our appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. We agree that our\n collective resources and experience, as well as our ability to engage\n in joint decision-making, will materially benefit and advance the\n interests of the Class in this case.\n\n See Dkt. No. 22-3 at *38 \u00b6 10. Dr. Price has not even attempted to explain why the\n\n Court should disregard these sworn attestations. Moreover, contrary to Dr. Price\u2019s\n\n assertion, all three members of the CoreWeave Investor Group have indeed\n\n participated in a conference call in which they discussed this litigation with one\n\n another.\n\n In the alternative, if the Court is disinclined to appoint a group of investors as\n\n Lead Plaintiff, then it should consider each member of the CoreWeave Investor\n\n Group individually. See, e.g., Goines v. Celsius Network, LLC, No. 22-cv-04560\n\n (KM) (ESK), 2023 WL 2945897, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2023) (\u201cIf the [movant\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 21 PageID:\n 1314\n\n\n\n group\u2019s] claimed amounts are aggregated\u2014and indeed, even if not\u2014its members\n\n clearly have the largest financial interest.\u201d); Aguilar, 2018 WL 1960444, at *11\n\n (\u201c[E]ven if the [movant group] were not considered as a group, [individual\n\n member\u2019s] financial loss, standing alone, is greater than [competing movant\u2019s]\n\n loss.\u201d); Inchen Huang v. Depomed, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1053-54 (N.D. Cal.\n\n 2017) (collecting cases, rejecting criticism that \u201cthere is no evidence the group\n\n members have spoken\u201d, and appointing group because \u201ceven if the group is\n\n disaggregated, one of its members\u2014[movant]\u2014still has the highest loss\u201d). Here,\n\n two group members \u2013 Mr. Oros, with losses of $547,163, and Mr. Xie, with losses\n\n of $316,992 \u2013 both incurred larger losses than any other eligible Lead Plaintiff\n\n applicant considered individually (including those who have abandoned their\n\n motions). Although Dr. Price claims to have incurred larger losses, his\n\n overwhelmingly bearish options trading disqualifies him from consideration\n\n irrespective of his claimed financial interest.\n\n In sum, the Court should not credit Dr. Price\u2019s opposition arguments, which\n\n lack any legal or factual basis.\n\n II. Mr. Fish\u2019s Conduct in this Litigation and History of Unrelated\n Misconduct Render Him Inadequate Under Rule 23\n\n Although Mr. Fish claims the largest financial interest among the three\n\n competing Lead Plaintiff movants, he is ineligible for appointment as Lead Plaintiff\n\n because his conduct in this and previous PSLRA actions, as well as his prior\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 21 PageID:\n 1315\n\n\n\n misconduct unrelated to securities litigation, demonstrate his inadequacy under Rule\n\n 23. See, e.g., AcelRx, 2021 WL 5964596, at *4 (denying motion by movant who\n\n committed \u201cserious financial crimes involving misappropriation of funds to which\n\n [movant] was entrusted\u201d); In re Network Assocs. Secs. Litig., 76 F. Supp. 2d 1017,\n\n 1029 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (finding lead plaintiff movant inadequate due to unrelated\n\n fraud investigation); Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Techs., 209 F.R.D. 499, 504-05 (S.D.\n\n Fla. 2002) (lead plaintiff movant inadequate where concerns existed with respect to\n\n his ability to serve as a fiduciary due to unrelated prior conduct); Villare v. Abiomed,\n\n Inc., No. 19 Civ. 7319 (ER) et al., 2020 WL 3497285, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020)\n\n (denying motion by movant with prior fraud conviction, finding that \u201ca criminal\n\n fraud conviction ten years ago remains extremely concerning for an individual\n\n seeking to serve as a fiduciary for absent class members asserting they are the\n\n victims of a fraudulent scheme\u201d); Schleicher v. Wendt, No. 1:02-cv-1332-DFH-TAB,\n\n 2009 WL 761157, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2009) (finding proposed class\n\n representative inadequate due to a past criminal conviction for insurance fraud); Shi\n\n v. SINA Corp., No. 05 Civ. 2154 (NRB) et al., 2005 WL 1561438, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n July 1, 2005) (finding \u201c[h]onesty and trustworthiness [to be] relevant factors in\n\n determining an individual\u2019s ability to serve as a class representative\u201d and denying\n\n motion by movant group of which one member had a criminal conviction for\n\n \u201cproviding false information to a financial institution.\u201d).\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 21 PageID:\n 1316\n\n\n\n Here, as discussed at length in the CoreWeave Investor Group\u2019s opposition\n\n brief, Mr. Fish\u2019s filings in this litigation to date have been duplicative and\n\n contradictory. Two different firms (L&K and KTMC) filed lead plaintiff motions\n\n on Mr. Fish\u2019s behalf, each representing that Mr. Fish selected it as his proposed Lead\n\n Counsel in this Action. See generally Dkt. Nos. 14, 16. Significant differences\n\n between the two sets of motion papers, however, suggested that Mr. Fish failed to\n\n review one or both of these submissions carefully. KTMC subsequently withdrew\n\n its motion papers, without explaining why the duplicative filing occurred. See Dkt.\n\n No. 23.\n\n In his opposition papers, however, Mr. Fish belatedly offered an explanation\n\n \u2013 namely, that he initially authorized L&K to file a motion on his behalf but\n\n subsequently came to believe that L&K would not, in fact, file his motion:\n\n On March 11, 2026, just prior to the motion deadline, I attempted to\n text message my attorney at Levi & Korsinsky . . . to confirm\n everything was in place for the upcoming motion filing. Unfortunately,\n I inadvertently sent the text message to [the attorney\u2019s] office line and\n not his cell phone, meaning the text message was never received. I did\n not know this at the time.\n\n . . . Having not received a response from [L&K] and with the deadline\n for lead plaintiff motions drawing closer, I reached out to another firm,\n Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, to discuss filing a lead plaintiff\n motion.\n\n Dkt. No. 32-1.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 21 PageID:\n 1317\n\n\n\n Respectfully, the foregoing explanation is not reassuring. As Mr. Fish tells it,\n\n a single unanswered (and unanswerable) text message to a single attorney at L&K\n\n was enough to convince him that the firm had abandoned its representation of him\n\n in this litigation. Remarkably, Mr. Fish does not describe any further efforts to\n\n contact L&K. He might have called the same telephone number to which he\n\n attempted to send a text message, which presumably would have resulted in his\n\n speaking to an attorney, but he did not. He might also have emailed one or more\n\n L&K attorneys, but he did not. Rather, he leapt to an erroneous conclusion that\n\n could easily have been avoided by picking up a telephone, as a consequence of which\n\n he unnecessarily authorized a second firm to file a motion on his behalf, thereby\n\n needlessly introducing confusion and inefficiency into these proceedings.\n\n Furthermore, in light of Mr. Fish\u2019s history, the CoreWeave Investor Group most\n\n respectfully submits that his explanation is somewhat difficult to credit, and the\n\n possibility remains that Mr. Fish\u2019s filing of duplicative motion practice was, in fact,\n\n some attempt at gamesmanship.\n\n In sum, Mr. Fish\u2019s communications with counsel were so disjointed that it\n\n was unclear at the outset \u2013 not only to the Court and other litigants, but even briefly\n\n to Mr. Fish himself \u2013 as to who even represented him in this Action. This litigation\n\n is at its very earliest stages and will only grow more complex. Most respectfully,\n\n the difficulties that Mr. Fish has already demonstrated with respect to coordinating\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 15 of 21 PageID:\n 1318\n\n\n\n what ought to be basic processes should not give the Court any confidence that he is\n\n prepared to effectively and efficiently prosecute the claims of absent Class members\n\n in this litigation.\n\n Even more concerning is Mr. Fish\u2019s extensive history of conduct that directly\n\n implicates his honesty and trustworthiness, rendering him unfit to serve as a\n\n fiduciary to the Class in this litigation. As discussed at length in the CoreWeave\n\n Investor Group\u2019s opposition brief, an investigation by the group\u2019s counsel has\n\n revealed that Mr. Fish previously pled guilty to petit larceny and possession of a\n\n forged instrument. See Dkt. No. 35-1 at *24-*26. Dr. Price\u2019s opposition brief also\n\n describes the troubling results of a similar investigation by his own counsel:\n\n It appears Mr. Fish was recently forced to resign from his position as\n an onsite property manager for Maxwell-Kates, Inc. (\u201cMaxwell-\n Kates\u201d) in connection with an investigation revealing not only that\n Maxwell-Kates mismanaged one of its properties, but also that Mr. Fish\n appears to have misspent thousands of dollars of the property\u2019s funds\n on personal Amazon purchases. In the wake of this scandal, Maxwell-\n Kates recently initiated a lawsuit against its now former employee Mr.\n Fish asserting claims including fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation,\n employee dishonesty, equitable action for an accounting, and\n conversion all \u201carising from [Mr. Fish]\u2019s unauthorized use of a\n company credit card for personal expenses totaling approximately\n $22,000.00.\u201d Enrooted in this pending litigation against Mr. Fish are\n the same characteristics of alleged misconduct, lack of trustworthiness,\n and fraud that are present in securities fraud class actions, and which\n have led courts to disqualify proposed lead plaintiffs.\n\n See Dkt. No. 34 at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 16 of 21 PageID:\n 1319\n\n\n\n More troubling still, Mr. Fish chose not to disclose any of this to the Court,\n\n despite its obvious relevance to assessing his Rule 23 adequacy and fitness to serve\n\n as a fiduciary generally. See, e.g., AcelRx, 2021 WL 5964596, at *4 (rejecting a lead\n\n plaintiff movant for the additional reason that he \u201cdid not disclose . . . in his own\n\n motion\u201d a prior conviction for embezzlement). Indeed, but for the separate\n\n investigations conducted by the competing movants\u2019 counsel, the Court would\n\n presumably remain wholly unaware of Mr. Fish\u2019s troubling past.\n\n At minimum, Mr. Fish\u2019s checkered past and lack of candor \u201cdemonstrates a\n\n reasonable basis for a finding that [he] is incapable of adequately representing the\n\n class.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iv). See also Broadfoot v. Barrick Gold Corp.\n\n et al., 17 Civ. 3507 (NRB), 2017 WL 3738444, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017)\n\n (granting limited discovery where \u201cthere exists a potential that [a movant] is in a\n\n unique position that would defeat typicality and adequacy\u201d); Rao v. Quorum Health\n\n Corp., 221 F. Supp. 3d 987, 990 (M.D. Tenn. 2016) (same). As such, the CoreWeave\n\n Investor Group respectfully reiterates its request for discovery into, inter alia, (i) the\n\n circumstances surrounding the filing of dual motions on Mr. Fish\u2019s behalf, including\n\n any retainer agreements with the two firms at issue, and (ii) any criminal conduct by\n\n Mr. Fish. Given the additional facts adduced by Dr. Price\u2019s counsel, the CoreWeave\n\n Investor Group also requests discovery into any other (i.e., not necessarily criminal)\n\n conduct by Mr. Fish implicating his honesty or trustworthiness.\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 17 of 21 PageID:\n 1320\n\n\n\n III. Dr. Price\u2019s Options Trading Makes Him Atypical Under Rule 23 and\n Subject to Unique Defenses\n\n Finally, irrespective of his financial interest in this Action \u2013 which is smaller\n\n than that of the CoreWeave Investor Group \u2013 Dr. Price does not meet the PSLRA\u2019s\n\n criteria for appointment as Lead Plaintiff because, having incurred all of his Class\n\n Period investment losses in connection with trading in option contracts, he is atypical\n\n under Rule 23 as well as subject to disqualifying unique defenses. Courts generally\n\n decline to appoint such investors to serve as lead plaintiffs in PSLRA actions. See,\n\n e.g., Allergn, 2019 WL 1510894, at *2 (investor who incurred most of his losses\n\n from options trading was \u201cnot, in the opinion of this court, an investor whose claims\n\n will turn out to be typical of the average common stockholder\u201d and \u201cvery likely\n\n \u2018would introduce factual issues irrelevant to stockholder class members, like strike\n\n price, duration, maturity, volatility, and interest rates[.]) (quoting In re Elan Corp.\n\n Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 08761 (AHK), 2009 WL 132116, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11,\n\n 2009)); Southwest Airlines, 2023 WL 4565464, at *5 (same).\n\n Here, not only was Dr. Price trading in option contracts exclusively, but the\n\n overwhelming majority of his trading activity was consistent with a negative\n\n investment thesis about CoreWeave and its business prospects \u2013 that is, Dr. Price\n\n appears to have traded option contracts in the expectation that CoreWeave\u2019s stock\n\n price would not increase in value. Specifically, Dr. Price purchased or sold 83 option\n\n contracts during the Class Period, 59 of which were call-option contracts that\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 18 of 21 PageID:\n 1321\n\n\n\n obligated Dr. Price to sell CoreWeave shares to his contractual counterparty at\n\n significantly lower-than-market prices in the event that the Company\u2019s stock price\n\n increased \u2013 that is, in each of these 59 instances, Dr. Price was betting that\n\n CoreWeave\u2019s stock price would not go up. Moreover, because Dr. Price did not\n\n actually own any shares of CoreWeave stock at the time he was entering into these\n\n option contracts, he would have had to purchase shares at market prices and then\n\n immediately sell them to his contractual counterparty at below-market prices,\n\n potentially incurring massive losses, in order to cover his position (i.e., to meet his\n\n obligations under the option contract). And while Dr. Price did acquire a certain\n\n number of CoreWeave common shares during the Class Period, he only did so\n\n because he became obligated to purchase those shares from counterparties to his\n\n option contracts when the share price of Coreweave exceeded the option strike price\n\n \u2013 that is, none of the purchases represented a voluntary trading decision by Dr. Price.\n\n See Dish Network, 2023 WL 5312062, at *5 (emphasizing that investors \u201cwho only\n\n acquire common stock involuntarily when put options they have written are\n\n exercised [] are simply differently situated from parties who engage in\u2014and whose\n\n losses predominantly derive from\u2014ordinary common-stock transactions.\u201d).This\n\n trading activity plainly differentiates Dr. Price from a typical Class member, who\n\n would have simply purchased the Company\u2019s shares on the open market in the good-\n\n faith belief that their price would go up. Here, Price purchased his shares only\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 19 of 21 PageID:\n 1322\n\n\n\n because their value increased beyond his expectations. Moreover, it calls into\n\n question whether Dr. Price even relied on the Defendants\u2019 alleged false and\n\n misleading statements when he made his investment decisions \u2013 indeed, in most\n\n instances he was betting that the Company\u2019s rosy forecasts would not materialize,\n\n thereby giving Defendants an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance first\n\n established in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), that \u201c[a]n investor who\n\n buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity\n\n of that price, as opposed to an investment thesis that the Company\u2019s share price will\n\n not increase, as evidenced by Dr. Price\u2019s option trading. Because most publicly\n\n available information is reflected in market price, an investor\u2019s reliance on any\n\n public material misrepresentations . . . may be presumed for purposes of a Rule 10b-\n\n 5 action.\u201d Basic, 485 U.S. at 247. At the very least, then, as Lead Plaintiff, Dr. Price\n\n would foreseeably be forced to spend his time litigating issues unique to his own\n\n trading activity and irrelevant to the fraud claims of absent Class members.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in its motion and\n\n opposition briefs (Dkt. Nos. 22-2, 35), the CoreWeave Investor Group respectfully\n\n requests that the Court issue an Order: (1) appointing the CoreWeave Investor Group\n\n as Lead Plaintiff for the Class; and (2) approving its selection of Pomerantz and\n\n BG&G as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 20 of 21 PageID:\n 1323\n\n\n\n Dated: March 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n POMERANTZ LLP\n\n /s/ Brian Calandra\n Brian Calandra\n Jeremy A. Lieberman\n (pro hac vice application forthcoming)\n J. Alexander Hood II\n (pro hac vice application forthcoming)\n 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor\n New York, New York 10016\n Telephone: (212) 661-1100\n Facsimile: (917) 463-1044\n bcalandra@pomlaw.com\n jalieberman@pomlaw.com\n ahood@pomlaw.com\n\n BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &\n GROSSMAN, LLC\n Peretz Bronstein\n (pro hac vice application forthcoming)\n 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600\n New York, New York 10165\n Telephone: (212) 697-6484\n Facsimile: (212) 697-7296\n peretz@bgandg.com\n\n Counsel for the CoreWeave Investor Group\n and Proposed Co-Lead Counsel for the\n Class\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 36 Filed 03/30/26 Page 21 of 21 PageID:\n 1324\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on this 30th day of March, 2026, I served a copy of the\n\n foregoing document through the CM/ECF system upon all counsel of record.\n\n /s/ Brian Calandra\n Brian Calandra\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-11T06:06:00.378208-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023751513","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-30T20:41:16.107782-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:37.581731-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-30","time_filed":"23:00:35","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":201,"description":"MEMORANDUM in Support filed by DANIEL R. OROS, ANASTASIA SYTINA, CHEN XIE re 22 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff MOTION to Appoint Counsel Lead Plaintiff Attorney: Brian Calandra. Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion of the CoreWeave Investor Group for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Co-Lead Counsel (CALANDRA, BRIAN) (Entered: 03/30/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/459098589/","id":459098589,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72134362/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/474116629/","id":474116629,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72134362/37/masaitis-v-coreweave-inc/","date_created":"2026-03-30T20:41:16.003936-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:37.790286-07:00","sha1":"0d21f24f42583963719a599eba50ef2da2b55a08","page_count":22,"file_size":327185,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.njd.589838/gov.uscourts.njd.589838.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.589838/gov.uscourts.njd.589838.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 22 PageID:\n 1325\n\n\n\n KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC ROBINSON MILLER LLC\n Kim E. Miller (PHV to be submitted) Michael J. Gesualdo\n 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor Ironside Newark\n New York, NY 10177 110 Edison Place, Suite 302\n Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Newark, New Jersey 07102\n Telephone: (973) 690-5400\n\n Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n Richard A. Price, M.D. and Proposed Movant Richard A. Price, M.D.\n Lead Counsel for the Class\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY\n\n\n RAYMOND MASAITIS, Individually No. 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW\n and on Behalf of Others Similarly\n Situated, CLASS ACTION\n\n Plaintiff, REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW\n IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n v. RICHARD A. PRICE, M.D.\u2019s\n MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS\n COREWEAVE, INC., MICHAEL LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n INTRATOR, NITIN AGRAWAL, and APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF\n BRANNIN MCBEE, COUNSEL\n\n Defendants. MOTION DATE: April 6, 2026\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 22 PageID:\n 1326\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n Page:\nI. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1\nII. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................2\n A. Dr. Price Is Adequate and Typical...................................................................2\n B. Mr. Fish Is Inadequate .....................................................................................9\n C. The Oros/Xie/Sytina Group is Inadequate ....................................................12\nIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................15\n\n\n\n\n i\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 22 PageID:\n 1327\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Page(s):\nCases\n\nAguilar v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.,\nNo. 2:17-cv-6454, 2018 WL 1960444 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2018) ...............................12\n\nBarnet v. Elan Corp., PLC.,\n 236 F.R.D. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .........................................................................13\n\nBasic Inc. v. Levinson,\n 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ...............................................................................................8\n\nChauhan v. Intercept Pharms.,\n No. 21-cv-00036, 2021 WL 235890 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) .............................7\n\nChao Sun v. Han,\n No. 15-cv-0703, 2015 WL 2364937 (D.N.J. May 14, 2015) ...............................14\n\nCook v. Allergan PLC,\n No. 18-cv-12089, 2019 WL 1510894 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) ..........................8\n\nCullinan v. Cemtrex,\n 287 F. Supp. 3d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ..................................................................11\n\nDavid v. Brit. Am. Tobacco P.L.C,\n No. 24-cv-517, 2024 WL 4351311 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024) ...........................11\n\nDeLuca v. Instadose Pharma Corp.,\n No. 2:21-cv-675, 2022 WL 3020417 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2022) ...........................13\n\nDeutschman v. Beneficial Corp.,\n 841 F.2d 502 (3d Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................3\n\nDura Pharms. v. Broudo,\n 544 U.S. 336 (2005) ...............................................................................................9\n\nGarbowski v. Tokai Pharms., Inc.,\n 302 F. Supp. 3d 441 (D. Mass. 2018)...................................................................11\n\nGoldstein v. Puda Coal, Inc.,\n 827 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................8\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 22 PageID:\n 1328\n\n\n\nGurevitch v. KeyCorp,\n No. 23-cv-01520, 2023 WL 8890938 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 26, 2023) ......................10\n\nIn re Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 14-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2014) .........................................................11\n\nIn re Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 17-cv-4846, 2017 WL 6403513 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017) ..........................13\n\nIn re Cendant Corp. Litig.,\n 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 12, 13, 15\n\nIn re Enzymotec Ltd. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 14-cv-5556, 2015 WL 918535 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2015) ...................................14\n\nIn re FleetBoston Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n 253 F.R.D. 315 (D.N.J. 2008) ..............................................................................10\n\nIn re Longfin Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n No. 1:18-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y.) .............................................................................10\n\nIn re Mersho,\n 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................13\n\nIn re Priceline.com Inc.,\n 236 F.R.D. 89 (D. Conn. 2006) ..................................................................... 4, 5, 8\n\nIn re Sci.-Atlanta, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 571 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (N.D. Ga. 2007) ..................................................................8\n\nIn re Vesta Ins. Grp., Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n No. 98-ar-1407, 1999 WL 34831475 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 1999), ..........................8\n\nIn re Vesta Ins. Grp., Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n No. 98-ar-1407, 2008 WL 11381802 (N.D. Ala. July 22, 2008) ...........................8\n\nIsaacs v. Musk,\n No. 18-cv-04865, 2018 WL 6182753 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018) .........................9\n\nKhunt v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.,\n 102 F. Supp. 3d 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ..................................................................11\n\n\n\n iii\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 22 PageID:\n 1329\n\n\n\nJ/H Real Est. Inc. v. Abramson,\n No. 95-cv-4176, 1996 WL 63712 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 1996) ....................................7\n\nLarmay v. AMMO Inc.,\n No. 24-cv-02619 (D. Ariz.) ...................................................................................7\n\nLarmay v. AMMO Inc.,\n No. 24-cv-02619, 2025 WL 2548618 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) ..........................2, 7\n\nLarmay v. AMMO Inc.,\n No. 24-cv-02619, 2025 WL 2399292 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2025) ........................2, 7\n\nLawless v. Aurora Cannabis Inc.,\n No. 20-cv-13819 2021 WL 2850451 (D.N.J. July 8, 2021).......................... 13, 14\n\nLouisiana Mun. Police Emps.\u2019 Ret. Sys. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.,\n No. 2:11-cv-289, 2012 WL 12985571 (D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2012) ............................13\n\nOFI Risk Arbitrages v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,\n 63 F. Supp. 3d 394 (D. Del. 2014) ......................................................................13\n\nOlsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc.,\n No. 2:25-cv-05427 (D.N.J.) ....................................................................................9\n\nPeters v. Jinkosolar Holding Co.,\n No. 11-cv-7133, 2012 WL 946875 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) ...........................13\n\nReitan v. China Mobile Games & Ent. Grp., Ltd.,\n 68 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................11\n\nSabbagh v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc.,\n C10-414, 2010 WL 3064427 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2010) ..................................13\n\nSagall v. Savient Pharms., Inc.,\n No. 08-cv-10262, 2009 WL 10868742 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2009) ........................7\n\nSalem v. Methode Elecs., Inc.,\n No. 24-cv-7696, 2025 WL 368955 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2025) ................................10\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 22 PageID:\n 1330\n\n\n\nSubramanian v. Watford,\n No. 20-cv-02652 (D. Colo.) .................................................................................11\n\nTakata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc.,\n No. 18-cv-2293, 2018 WL 5801379 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018) ......................... 14, 15\n\nTomaszewski v. Trevena, Inc.,\n 383 F. Supp. 3d 409 (E.D. Pa. 2019)....................................................................15\n\nTsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp.,\n No. 07-cv-2204, 2008 WL 942273 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2008) ................................12\nStatutes\n\nSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 ...............................................................................3\n\n15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78c(a) ..................................................................................................3, 5\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 23 .......................................................................................................1\n\nBooks\n\nLAWRENCE G. MCMILLAN,\n OPTIONS AS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT (4th ed. 2002) .................................. 3, 4, 5\n\n\n\n\n v\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 22 PageID:\n 1331\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n Dr. Price is the most adequate plaintiff who otherwise satisfies the\n\nrequirements of Rule 23, as any arguable presumptions in favor of Mr. Fish or the\n\nOros/Xie/Sytina Group (the \u201cGroup\u201d) have been rebutted. With respect to Mr. Fish,\n\ncompeting movants submitted proof that he pled guilty to petit larceny and the\n\npossession of a forged instrument in 2016 and 2018, respectively, and just some 9\n\nmonths ago, was sued by his former employer for apparently misappropriating\n\nthousands of dollars from a Bronx co-op for the elderly. When considered in\n\nconjunction with his submission of two conflicting motions for appointment and the\n\nlitany of errors in his certifications and declarations, there can be little doubt that\n\nMr. Fish would not be an adequate steward of the putative Class. With respect to the\n\nGroup, it is just the type of cobbled-together, lawyer-driven artifice the Third Circuit\n\nhas cautioned against appointing as a lead plaintiff. To say nothing of the fact that\n\nthe Group\u2019s members are strewn across the country and appear not to have even\n\nspoken with one another prior to filing their motion, Dr. Price sustained substantially\n\ngreater losses than any individual member of the Group.\n\n Finally, while both Mr. Fish and the Group argue Dr. Price is inadequate\n\nbecause he transacted in both CoreWeave stock and options during the Class Period,\n\nthey are incorrect. Dr. Price, like many other members of the putative Class, acquired\n\nCoreWeave stock during the Class Period pursuant to assigned puts and\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 22 PageID:\n 1332\n\n\n\nsubsequently sold covered calls against his long position. Courts have consistently\n\nheld this exact bullish investment strategy poses no impediments to adequacy or\n\ntypicality. Competing movants\u2019 arguments to the contrary are inconsistent with both\n\nprevailing law and the definition of the Class itself.\n\n As his loss chart demonstrates, the vast majority of Dr. Price\u2019s $(895,936.71)\n\nloss is attributable to his investment in CoreWeave stock\u2014some 25,247 shares of\n\nwhich he retained through the end of the Class Period. This fact fatally undermines\n\nthe Group\u2019s baseless assertion that Dr. Price\u2019s Class Period transactions \u201creflected a\n\nnegative investment thesis with respect to CoreWeave\u2026.\u201d ECF No. 35 at 7. In so\n\narguing, the Group disingenuously conflates selling uncovered calls with selling\n\ncovered calls and directly contradicts arguments its counsel recently (and\n\nsuccessfully) advanced in Larmay v. AMMO Inc., No. 24-cv-02619, 2025 WL\n\n2548618, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025), R. & R. adopted, No. 24-cv-02619, 2025\n\nWL 2399292 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2025).\n\nII. ARGUMENT\n A. Dr. Price Is Adequate and Typical\n While the Group attempts to paint a portrait of Dr. Price as an inadequate,\n\natypical investor with a \u201cnegative investment thesis\u201d on CoreWeave (ECF No. 35 at\n\n7), this could not be further from the truth\u2014as should be obvious from his\n\n$(895,936.71) loss, which is almost entirely attributable to stock. Central to the\n\nGroup\u2019s argument is its superficial observation that Dr. Price sold calls during the\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 22 PageID:\n 1333\n\n\n\nClass Period. Id. at 25-30. But Dr. Price only ever sold covered calls against his long\n\nposition(s) in CoreWeave stock. See ECF No. 11-3 (Dr. Price Certification, Schedule\n\nA). As its own counsel has successfully argued in at least two other cases, this\n\ninvestment strategy does not undermine Dr. Price\u2019s adequacy or typicality.\n\n This Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange\n\nAct of 1934 (the \u201cExchange Act\u201d) against Defendants \u201con behalf of a Class []\n\nconsisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired CoreWeave securities\n\nduring the Class Period\u2026.\u201d \u00b6 84 (emphasis added). Putting aside the vast quantities\n\nof stock Dr. Price purchased during the Class Period, the put and call options Dr.\n\nPrice purchased and sold during the Class Period are indisputably \u201csecurities,\u201d as\n\n\u201c[t]he term \u201csecurity\u201d means\u2026any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any\n\nsecurity\u2026.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78c(a)(10); see also Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp., 841\n\nF.2d 502, 508 (3d Cir. 1988) (confirming options purchasers have standing to pursue\n\nSection 10(b) claims). \u201cA call option gives the owner (or holder) the right to buy the\n\nunderlying security, while a put option gives the holder the right to sell the\n\nunderlying security. The price at which the stock may be bought or sold is the\n\nexercise [or strike] price\u2026.A stock option affords this right to buy or sell for only a\n\nlimited period of time; thus, each option has an expiration date.\u201d LAWRENCE G.\n\nMCMILLAN, OPTIONS AS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT 3-4 (4th ed. 2002).\n\n Dr. Price first began investing in CoreWeave securities when, on June 5, 2025,\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 22 PageID:\n 1334\n\n\n\n he sold-to-open a put contract with a strike price of $133 and an expiration date of\n\n June 15. See ECF No. 11-3 at p. 2. \u201c[T]he seller of a put will make money if the\n\n underlying stock increases in price. The uncovered sale of a put is a more common\n\n strategy \u2026 and \u2026 is a bullishly-oriented strategy.\u201d MCMILLAN, supra, at 292. Thus,\n\n on June 5, when the price of CoreWeave stock opened at $156/share, Dr. Price wrote\n\n a put contract with an investment thesis that CoreWeave\u2019s share price would not fall\n\n to $133 by June 15. See Second Suppl. Gesualdo Decl., submitted herewith, at Ex.\n\n A, p. 2 (CoreWeave Historical Price Run). He was right, and the put expired\n\n worthless on June 15. Dr. Price continued to write puts which either expired or which\n\n he bought-to-close at a minimal cost until, on July 11, 2025: (1) CoreWeave\u2019s stock\n\n price finally fell below the strike prices of his puts; (2) the put purchasers exercised\n\n their options; and (3) he was assigned the corresponding shares. See ECF No. 11-3\n\n at p. 1-3 (taking delivery on July 14 of 1,700 shares in Account #2 and 7,500 shares\n\n in Account #4 from assigned July 11 puts).\n\n Dr. Price implemented the same bullish strategy in each of his five accounts\u2014\n\n he initiated a long position by selling puts and eventually taking delivery of\n\n CoreWeave stock. 1 By no means is such an approach \u201cunorthodox,\u201d as the Group\n\n claims. ECF No. 35 at 28. In fact, the court in In re Priceline.com Inc., 236 F.R.D.\n\n\n\n 1\n See ECF No. 11-3 at pp. 1, 2, 5 (first transaction in each account is a sell-to-open\n put).\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 22 PageID:\n 1335\n\n\n\n 89 (D. Conn. 2006), explained this exact strategy in rejecting defendants\u2019 challenges\n\n to a proposed class representative\u2019s adequacy and typicality.\n\n By writing put options, Weiss expected to profit in either of two ways:\n (1) if the holder did not exercise the put option, by retaining the\n premium paid to him for the put option; or (2) if the holder exercised\n the put options and the shares were put to him, by acquiring Priceline\n shares at a price he deemed reasonable, which would be the strike price\n less the premium paid to him for the put option . . ..[E]ven if the market\n price dipped below the strike price on a put option he wrote, if Weiss\n believed that the effective purchase price of the shares (strike price\n minus premium) was reasonable and that the market price would\n eventually rise, writing a put option would be a win-win scenario for\n him.\n\n Id. at 99. Dr. Price\u2019s acquisition of CoreWeave stock via puts was unremarkable and\n\n constituted \u201cpurchases\u201d of \u201csecurities\u201d within the meaning of both the defined Class\n\n and 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78c(a)(10) and (13).\n\n Critically, only after Dr. Price was long in CoreWeave stock did he begin\n\n writing covered calls against those shares. In contrast to uncovered calls, \u201c[c]overed\n\n call writing is the name given to the strategy by which one sells a call option while\n\n simultaneously owning the obligated number of shares of underlying stock. The\n\n writer should be mildly bullish, or at least neutral, toward the underlying stock.\u201d\n\n MCMILLAN, supra, at 39. This is exactly what Dr. Price did. In his Account #1, for\n\n example, after Dr. Price was assigned 3,500 shares on August 15 at a cost basis of\n\n $125/share (pursuant to the corresponding put he wrote on August 13), sold covered\n\n calls against those shares for modest premiums (effectively reducing his cost basis),\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 22 PageID:\n 1336\n\n\n\n and held those same 3,500 shares through the end of the Class Period. See ECF No.\n\n 11-3 at p. 1. After the $89,495 in premiums Dr. Price received from writing those\n\n covered calls is properly netted against the retained value loss of $(136,972.50) he\n\n sustained on the 3,500 shares, his asserted loss in Account #1 is $(47,477.50). See\n\n ECF No. 11-4 at p. 1 (Dr. Price Loss Chart). Dr. Price\u2019s other four accounts reflect\n\n much of the same.\n\n It was perfectly appropriate for Dr. Price to average down his cost basis in\n\n CoreWeave stock in this manner. And Dr. Price maintained a long position in\n\n CoreWeave stock for the same reason as other Class Period purchasers: he hoped,\n\n absent knowledge of the artificial inflation attributable to Defendants\u2019 alleged fraud,\n\n the share price would go up. The Group\u2019s own counsel recently and accurately\n\n explained this familiar investment strategy to the court in AMMO. There, as here,\n\n lead plaintiff movants initiated a long position when they were assigned shares\n\n pursuant to sell-to-open puts and subsequently sold covered calls against their long\n\n position.\n\n [Movants] acquired 705,400 shares of AMMO stock from the sale of\n put options\u2026well before the end of the Class Period. Then, instead of\n selling the large amount of stock assigned to them through the sale of\n put options, they continued to hold most of that stock well into the Class\n Period and ultimately held 166,000 shares through the end of the Class\n Period, thereby indicating that they were long on AMMO\n stock\u2026.Accordingly, in the context of the predominantly long\n position\u2026the sale of call options does not constitute a bet against\n AMMO stock, as Scarborough contends. Rather, it indicates that, when\n [movants] sold call options, they were merely investing on the\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 22 PageID:\n 1337\n\n\n\n expectation that AMMO\u2019s stock price would not rise past a certain\n threshold, thereby employing a common strategy to hedge against\n investment losses\u2026.\n\n AMMO, No. 24-cv-02619, (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2024), ECF No. 33, p. 7 (internal\n\n citations omitted); accord AMMO, 2025 WL 2548618, at *4 (rejecting argument of\n\n competing lead plaintiff movants that presumptive movants\u2019 \u201coptions transactions,\n\n including selling call options and losses from put option exercises, render them\n\n atypical,\u201d because presumptive movants \u201cmaintained a predominantly \u2018long\u2019\n\n position\u2026and retained 166,000 shares at the [class] period\u2019s end\u201d) (emphasis\n\n added). The Group\u2019s counsel also successfully argued selling covered calls doesn\u2019t\n\n undermine adequacy or typicality in Sagall v. Savient Pharms., Inc., No. 08-cv-\n\n 10262, 2009 WL 10868742 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2009).\n\n Schaefer\u2019s argument that Koncelik in fact bet against the company [by\n selling covered calls] misreads Koncelik\u2019s investments in a way that\n calls into question her and her attorneys\u2019 understanding of the relevant\n market\u2026.The Chicago Board Options Exchange describes such a\n strategy as \u201cbasic\u201d rather than exotic, and as \u201cneutral to moderately\n bullish,\u201d as distinct from the strategy of selling short. Koncelik\u2019s rather\n modest use of this hedging strategy had little effect on the extent of his\n losses from investing in Savient, and creates no \u201cunique defenses\u201d or\n plausible objections by defendants to his ability and interest in\n representing this class.\n\n Id. at *1 (internal citations omitted). 2\n\n\n 2\n See also Chauhan v. Intercept Pharms., No. 21-cv-00036, 2021 WL 235890, at *6-\n 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (rejecting argument that presumptive lead plaintiff\n movant was inadequate or atypical because he sold covered calls); J/H Real Est. Inc.\n v. Abramson, No. 95-cv-4176, 1996 WL 63712, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 1996) (same);\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 22 PageID:\n 1338\n\n\n\n The Group\u2019s collateral argument that Dr. Price is subject to a unique defense\n\n because he \u201ccannot be entitled to rely on the Basic presumption of reliance premised\n\n upon \u2018fraud-on-the-market\u2019\u201d is likewise incorrect. ECF No. 35 at 29 (citing Basic\n\n Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 248-89 (1988)). The Priceline court explicitly\n\n rejected the same argument, holding that \u201cnotwithstanding his trading in put options,\n\n because [Weiss] wrote put options, his interests are aligned with those of the class\n\n and \u2018the link between the alleged misrepresentation and either the price received (or\n\n paid) by the plaintiff, or his decision to trade at a fair market price,\u2019 remains intact.\u201d\n\n 236 F.R.D. at 100 (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 248). 3\n\n Moreover, while the competing movants look for support in Cook v. Allergan\n\n PLC, No. 18-cv-12089, 2019 WL 1510894 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019), there the court\n\n declined to appoint a movant lead plaintiff because the majority (60%) of his losses\n\n were attributable to options. Id. at *2. Here, conversely, all but approximately\n\n\n\n In re Vesta Ins. Grp., Inc., Sec. Litig., No. 98-ar-1407, 1999 WL 34831475, at *11-\n 12 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 1999), amended in part sub nom. In re Vesta Ins. Grp., Inc.\n Sec. Litig., No. 98-ar-1407, 2008 WL 11381802 (N.D. Ala. July 22, 2008) (same).\n 3\n See also Goldstein v. Puda Coal, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 348, 355-57 (S.D.N.Y.\n 2011) (holding put option seller was typical because his claims arose from the same\n alleged fraudulent conduct as other class members\u2019 claims); In re Sci.-Atlanta, Inc.\n Sec. Litig., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (\u201c[A] put options seller,\n upon proof of market efficiency in the underlying stock, is generally entitled to a\n rebuttable presumption of reliance.\u201d); Intercept, 2021 WL 235890, at *6 (\u201cAbsent\n evidence that [lead plaintiff movant who sold covered calls] did not rely on the\n integrity of the market price, which has not been offered at this stage, there is no\n reason to disqualify [movant] as lead plaintiff.\u201d).\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 15 of 22 PageID:\n 1339\n\n\n\n $(14,783.00), or ~1.65%, of Dr. Price\u2019s $(895,936.71) loss is attributable to stock.\n\n See ECF No. 11-4. Similarly, Mr. Fish points to Dr. Price\u2019s counsel\u2019s arguments in\n\n Olsen v. Red Cat Holdings, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05427, ECF No. 11, p. 19 (D.N.J. May\n\n 23, 2025), as contrary to Dr. Price\u2019s position here. That is incorrect. Unlike Dr. Price,\n\n the movant in Red Cat did not sustain any losses on stock and erroneously included\n\n \u201closses for his purchases of Red Cat options he purchased after [a] partial corrective\n\n disclosure, but which he either sold or which expired prior to the [] final corrective\n\n disclosure,\u201d ECF No. 11, p. 13, in contravention of Dura Pharms. v. Broudo, 544\n\n U.S. 336, 342-43 (2005). After unrecoverable losses were excluded, the movant\n\n actually \u201cprofited from his Class Period transactions in Red Cat securities to the tune\n\n of $146,599.\u201d Id. at pp. 2-3 (emphasis in original).\n\n In fact, at least one court has credited the breadth of a movant\u2019s investments\n\n in different types of securities as additional support for appointing him lead plaintiff.\n\n See Isaacs v. Musk, No. 18-cv-04865, 2018 WL 6182753, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27,\n\n 2018) (appointing movant who \u201cheld interests that cover most of the persons/entities\n\n likely to be in the class\u2014i.e., long positions in common stock, long positions in\n\n options, and short positions in options\u201d).\n\n B. Mr. Fish Is Inadequate\n Any presumption in favor of Mr. Fish has been rebutted, as he has\n\n demonstrated a pattern of fraudulent misconduct that creates a \u201cpotential to distract\n\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 16 of 22 PageID:\n 1340\n\n\n\n [that] militates against his appointment.\u201d Gurevitch v. KeyCorp, No. 1:23-cv-01520,\n\n 2023 WL 8890938, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 26, 2023). Mr. Fish appears to have pled\n\n guilty to the fraud-based crimes of Petit Larceny in 2016 and Possession of a Forged\n\n Instrument in 2018. See ECF No. 35-1 at 25. Mr. Fish\u2019s former employer also\n\n recently sued him for allegedly misappropriating thousands of dollars from a Bronx\n\n co-op for the elderly. See ECF No. 34 at 13-15. The Court should be \u201cextremely\n\n concerned\u201d that Mr. Fish\u2019s prior misconduct \u201cpaint[s] a cumulative picture of a\n\n candidate prone to [] exercising poor judgment.\u201d In re FleetBoston Fin. Corp. Sec.\n\n Litig., 253 F.R.D. 315, 331 (D.N.J. 2008).\n\n Mr. Fish also failed to correct or even acknowledge the material discrepancies\n\n between his filed certifications, one of which reflected the same error which resulted\n\n in his disqualification in In re Longfin Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:18-cv-02933,\n\n (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2018), ECF No. 65 at 17:3-16 ; see also Salem v. Methode Elecs.,\n\n Inc., No. 24-cv-7696, 2025 WL 368955, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2025) (\u201c[F]ailure to\n\n discover and correct such errors demonstrates that a lead plaintiff will not adequately\n\n represent the class\u2026.\u201d).\n\n Mr. Fish\u2019s explanation for filing two conflicting motions only raises further\n\n doubts about his adequacy. Mr. Fish states that on March 11, 2026, he \u201cattempted to\n\n text message [his] attorney\u2026to confirm everything was in place for the upcoming\n\n motion filing\u201d but \u201cinadvertently sent the text message to [his] office line\u2026meaning\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 17 of 22 PageID:\n 1341\n\n\n\n the text message was never received.\u201d ECF No. 32-1 at \u00b6 4. But before seeking\n\n substitute counsel, Mr. Fish could have attempted a follow-up phone call to his\n\n lawyer, emailed, or perhaps even called L&K\u2019s main office. Mr. Fish took none of\n\n these actions. See generally ECF No. 32-1. Instead, less than 24 hours later, 4 Mr.\n\n Fish directed his efforts toward retaining substitute counsel. Mr. Fish\u2019s inability to\n\n effectively communicate with and supervise his counsel raises serious doubts about\n\n his adequacy. See Garbowski v. Tokai Pharms., Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 441, 453 (D.\n\n Mass. 2018) (declining to appoint movant who would not \u201chave been willing or able\n\n to discharge [his] duties\u201d of supervising counsel).\n\n Moreover, the purportedly exculpatory authority Mr. Fish cites is readily\n\n distinguishable, as the movants in those cases admitted to either mistakenly\n\n believing filing multiple motions would increase their chances for appointment or\n\n that they were moving for appointment in separate lawsuits. 5 Mr. Fish, on the other\n\n\n 4\n Mr. Fish presumably retained KTMC within 24 hours of his March 11 text\n message, as he executed the KTMC Certification on March 12, 2026. See ECF No.\n 16-4.\n 5\n See David v. Brit. Am. Tobacco P.L.C., No. 24-cv-517, 2024 WL 4351311, at *6\n (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024) (movant \u201cerroneously thought that signing up with two\n law firms would better secure and serve [her] application\u201d); Khunt v. Alibaba Grp.\n Holding Ltd., 102 F. Supp. 3d 523, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (same); Cullinan v.\n Cemtrex, Inc., 287 F. Supp. 3d 277, 283 n.9 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (movant believed \u201che\n was joining a different lawsuit than the one at issue\u201d); Subramanian v. Watford, No.\n 20-cv-02652 (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2020) , ECF No. 30-3 (same). The holding in Reitan\n v. China Mobile Games & Ent. Grp., Ltd., 68 F. Supp. 3d 390, 400 n.6 (S.D.N.Y.\n 2014), is also distinguishable, as there two distinct legal entities filed separate\n motions. And in In re Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. Sec. Litig., the court did\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 18 of 22 PageID:\n 1342\n\n\n\n hand, does not characterize his miscommunication as a \u201cmistake,\u201d as he cannot in\n\n one breath tout his experience as a lead plaintiff and in the next admit to such a\n\n \u201cblatant gaffe.\u201d Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp., No. 07-cv-2204, 2008 WL\n\n 942273, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2008).\n\n C. The Oros/Xie/Sytina Group is Inadequate\n The Third Circuit has instructed courts to avoid appointing groups of investors\n\n with no pre-existing relationships and which are \u201ccreated by the efforts of lawyers\n\n hoping to ensure their eventual appointment as lead counsel.\u201d In re Cendant Corp.\n\n Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 267 (3d Cir. 2001). Despite the Group\u2019s efforts to distort the\n\n factual record by disregarding Dr. Price\u2019s losses (which are considerably higher than\n\n any of its members), and its heavy reliance on a boilerplate Joint Declaration that\n\n strongly suggests its lawyers amalgamated these individuals at the eleventh hour,\n\n prevailing case law confirms the unrelated, lawyer-driven Group is not an\n\n appropriate lead plaintiff candidate.\n\n First, the Group does not fall within the limited exception permitting\n\n appointment of unrelated groups where the losses of a single member exceed those\n\n of all other competing movants, as was the case in the vast majority of the Group\u2019s\n\n cited decisions. 6 Although the Group claims \u201cno individual movant claims a larger\n\n\n not reach the issue of the movant filing two motions because those conflicting\n motions were unopposed. See No. 14-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2014) , ECF No.\n 18.\n 6\n See Aguilar v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-6454, 2018 WL 1960444, at *11\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 19 of 22 PageID:\n 1343\n\n\n\n investment loss than either Mr. Oros ($547,163) or Mr. Xie ($316,992),\u201d the record\n\n plainly contradicts this assertion. ECF No. 35 at 15.\n\n Dr. Price\u2019s financial interest greatly exceeds that of any individual member of\n\n the Group. This is true even using a variety of different metrics:\n\n Shares Funds\n Movant: Status: Loss:\n Purchased: Expended:\n Dr. Price Individual 43,800 $(6,242,196) $(895,936.71)\n Oros Group Member 8,766.73 $(1,373,524) $(547,163)\n Xie Group Member 13,943 $(1,716,066) $(316,992)\n Sytina Group Member 2,500 $(444,540) $(229,676)\n This latter point also distinguishes the present case from Lawless v. Aurora Cannabis\n\n Inc. There, the court held the movant group possessed the greatest financial interest\n\n and was the presumptive lead plaintiff not only because it \u201ccollectively suffered the\n\n greatest approximate losses,\u201d but also because the group included \u201cthe individual[s]\n\n\n\n\n (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2018) (comparing financial interests of competing individual\n movant and group member with larger loss); DeLuca v. Instadose Pharma Corp.,\n No. 2:21-cv-675, 2022 WL 3020417, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2022) (same); In re\n Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 896 (9th Cir. 2021) (same); Peters v. Jinkosolar Holding Co.,\n No. 11-cv-7133, 2012 WL 946875, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (same); Sabbagh\n v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., 10-cv-414, 2010 WL 3064427, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Aug.\n 2, 2010) (same). The Group also cites cases comparing the aggregated financial\n interests of multiple movant groups, as well as individuals, which are clearly\n distinguishable as there is no other group movant here. See In re Blue Apron\n Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-4846, 2017 WL 6403513, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.\n 15, 2017); OFI Risk Arbitrages v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 63 F. Supp. 3d 394,\n 398-99 (D. Del. 2014); Louisiana Mun. Police Emps.\u2019 Ret. Sys. v. Green Mountain\n Coffee Roasters, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-289, 2012 WL 12985571, at *1 (D. Vt. Apr. 27,\n 2012); Barnet v. Elan Corp., PLC, 236 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); In re\n Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 223 (3d Cir. 2001).\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 20 of 22 PageID:\n 1344\n\n\n\n with both the largest amount of net shares purchased [] and the largest amount of net\n\n funds expended [].\u201d 20-cv-13819, 2021 WL 2850451, at *3 (D.N.J. July 8, 2021).\n\n That factual predicate is missing here, where Dr. Price purchased more shares and\n\n expended more funds than any member of the Group. 7 Accordingly, given Mr. Fish\u2019s\n\n disqualification, the Group\u2019s own cited authority supports Dr. Price\u2019s appointment.\n\n Nor has the Group demonstrated a pre-litigation relationship 8 or\n\n \u201ccohesiveness and independence from proposed counsel, including \u2018how and when\n\n they were joined together, how they intend to conduct discovery or how they will\n\n coordinate litigation efforts and strategy.\u2019\u201d Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., 18-cv-\n\n 2293, 2018 WL 5801379, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018); see also Chao Sun v. Han,\n\n No. 15-cv-0703, 2015 WL 2364937, at *4 (D.N.J. May 14, 2015) (considering \u201c(i)\n\n whether the individuals in question had a pre-existing relationship, (ii) the extent of\n\n that relationship, (iii) whether the group was created by the efforts of lawyers for the\n\n purpose of obtaining lead plaintiff status, and (iv) whether the group is too large to\n\n\n 7\n Further, while the Lawless court describes the group as \u201cthree individual investors\n whose individual injuries are comparable to those of both [individual movants],\u201d that\n again is not the case here. Id. at *5. There, the individual movant\u2019s loss was, at most,\n a little more than $100,000 greater than the group member with the smallest loss. Id.\n at *2. Here, by contrast, Dr. Price\u2019s loss exceeds Oros\u2019s by over $300,000, Xie\u2019s by\n more than $550,000, and Sytina\u2019s by more than $650,000.\n 8\n Unlike here, in In re Enzymotec Ltd. Sec. Litig., the court appointed a group\n partially comprised of related individuals, including a father and son. No. 14-cv-\n 5556, 2015 WL 918535, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2015). Critically, however, in that\n case the presumptive individual movant\u2019s adequacy had been rebutted due to\n certification errors. Id. at *2-3. That threshold finding is likewise absent here.\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 21 of 22 PageID:\n 1345\n\n\n\n adequately represent the Class.\u201d) (citing Cendant, 264 F.3d at 266-67). Here, the\n\n Group\u2019s Joint Declaration provides none of these necessary insights, but instead\n\n merely lists biographical summaries, generalized reasons for seeking appointment,\n\n and boilerplate assurances regarding the responsibilities of a lead plaintiff. See ECF\n\n No. 35 at 14. Those statements, without more, do not establish that the Group\n\n functions as a cohesive entity.\n\n Furthermore, the Joint Declaration demonstrates that the Group members did\n\n not even communicate with each other prior to filing their motion. See ECF No. 22-\n\n 3 at \u00b6 2-5 (stating that while the Group members discussed the case with their\n\n attorneys, they are only \u201caware of each other\u201d). Even courts that have taken a more\n\n permissive view on unrelated groups have nonetheless required evidence of\n\n \u201cinformed communication among the members as to forming a group [that] need\n\n only predate the motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.\u201d Tomaszewski v. Trevena,\n\n Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 409, 416 (E.D. Pa. 2019); see also Takata, 2018 WL 5801379,\n\n at *5 (stating the members \u201c\u2018were aware of each other\u2019 prior to the motion\u201d did \u201cnot\n\n allay the [Court\u2019s] concerns about appointing a loose, attorney-driven group of\n\n investors\u201d). The Group\u2019s arguments in support of their appointment as lead plaintiff\n\n are without merit.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n Dr. Price respectfully requests that his motion be granted.\n\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00355-JKS-LDW Document 37 Filed 03/30/26 Page 22 of 22 PageID:\n 1346\n\n\n\n DATED: March 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n ROBINSON MILLER LLC\n\n /s/ Michael J. Gesualdo\n Michael J. Gesualdo\n Ironside Newark\n 110 Edison Place, Suite 302\n Newark, New Jersey 07102\n Telephone: (973) 690-5400\n Email: mgesualdo@rwmlegal.com\n\n Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n Richard A. Price, M.D.\n\n KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n Kim E. Miller (PHV to be submitted)\n 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n New York, NY 10177\n Telephone: (212) 696-3730\n Fax: (504) 455-1498\n Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n\n Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant Richard\n A. Price, M.D. and Proposed Lead Counsel\n for the Class\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n On March 30, 2026, the foregoing document was filed through the Court\u2019s\n\n ECF system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified\n\n on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).\n\n DATED: March 30, 2026 /s/ Michael J. Gesualdo\n Michael J. Gesualdo\n\n\n\n 16\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-11T06:05:41.579525-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"119023751516","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply Brief to Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-30T20:41:15.976429-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-20T07:24:37.748006-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-30","time_filed":"23:03:21","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-30.002","pacer_sequence_number":205,"description":"REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion filed by Richard A. Price re 11 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to Appoint Lead Counsel (Attachments: # 1 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. GESUALDO IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF RICHARD A. PRICE, M.D.'s MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF COUNSEL, # 2 Exhibit A)(GESUALDO, MICHAEL) (Entered: 03/30/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72134362&page_size=40"}