{"cached_at":"2026-10-09T10:42:10.058048+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71969472","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","id":71969472,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/azd/","court_id":"azd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10968126/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2025-11-26T12:05:14.972707-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-04T03:29:07.661440-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Krissa M. Lanham","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-11-24","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-15","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019 v. Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated","case_name_full":"","slug":"singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market","docket_number":"2:25-cv-04416","docket_number_core":"2504416","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-04416","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"KML","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1469185","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-11-26T12:05:14.957211-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19669399/","id":19669399,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513218/","attorney_id":13513218,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513218/","attorney_id":13513218,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.801319-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.801346-07:00","name":"Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19669398/","id":19669398,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513217/","attorney_id":13513217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513217/","attorney_id":13513217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.596947-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.596975-07:00","name":"Carolle Poudrier","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19669397/","id":19669397,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513217/","attorney_id":13513217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513217/","attorney_id":13513217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.421378-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T05:12:27.421405-07:00","name":"Leslie Rotness","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19669396/","id":19669396,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513212/","attorney_id":13513212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513212/","attorney_id":13513212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513212/","attorney_id":13513212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513213/","attorney_id":13513213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513213/","attorney_id":13513213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513213/","attorney_id":13513213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16106677/","attorney_id":16106677,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16106677/","attorney_id":16106677,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16106677/","attorney_id":16106677,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513214/","attorney_id":13513214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513214/","attorney_id":13513214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513214/","attorney_id":13513214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513215/","attorney_id":13513215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513215/","attorney_id":13513215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513216/","attorney_id":13513216,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Lead Plaintiff","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:26.557526-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T05:12:26.557553-07:00","name":"Peter Robinson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16754175/","id":16754175,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-26T21:08:24.036915-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-26T21:08:24.036937-08:00","name":"Curtis Valentine","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16754174/","id":16754174,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-26T21:08:24.014632-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-26T21:08:24.014649-08:00","name":"Jack L Sinclair","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16754173/","id":16754173,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513209/","attorney_id":13513209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513210/","attorney_id":13513210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13513211/","attorney_id":13513211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-26T21:08:23.992951-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-26T21:08:23.992971-08:00","name":"Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16754172/","id":16754172,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10912835/","attorney_id":10912835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10912835/","attorney_id":10912835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10912835/","attorney_id":10912835,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10912836/","attorney_id":10912836,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10912836/","attorney_id":10912836,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","docket_id":71969472,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-26T21:08:23.765902-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-26T21:08:23.765923-08:00","name":"Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479032786/","id":479032786,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494672192/","id":494672192,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.824393-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.824402-07:00","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":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.811406-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.811415-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Joshua E Baker on behalf of Plaintiff Peter Robinson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478088686/","id":478088686,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493705960/","id":493705960,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-15T13:18:37.094556-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T13:18:37.094571-07:00","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":"Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-15T13:18:37.083010-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T13:18:37.083028-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":"12:18:28","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477867850/","id":477867850,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493478011/","id":493478011,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/36/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-09-14T10:01:24.322459-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T10:01:24.329064-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025031467982","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T10:01:24.289908-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.791376-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"09:08:54","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":138,"description":"ORDER - IT IS ORDERED the Stipulation (Doc. 35 ) is GRANTED. No later than November 10, 2026, lead plaintiff shall file an amended complaint or notify defendants that the previously filed complaint will be the operative complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within sixty days of the amended complaint being filed or plaintiffs stating the previously filed complaint will be the operative complaint, defendants shall respond to the operative pleading. Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion to dismiss within sixty days, and the reply shall be filed within thirty days of the response. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both counsel and pro se litigants must abide by the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (\"Local Rules\") and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Krissa M Lanham on 9/14/2026. (NSH) (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477617157/","id":477617157,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493217282/","id":493217282,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/35/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-09-10T21:41:28.505770-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T21:41:28.513391-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025031460690","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-10T21:41:28.484311-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.773796-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":"20:45:28","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":136,"description":"STIPULATION Regarding Schedule for Filing of Amended Complaint and Response Thereto by Jack L Sinclair, Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated, Curtis Valentine. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McGeHee, Corey) (Entered: 09/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477019809/","id":477019809,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492599025/","id":492599025,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/34/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-09-04T12:41:08.394840-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-04T03:29:07.754690-07:00","sha1":"c2aab9de873dc8c70eb88e07ea58352c1689819f","page_count":8,"file_size":211278,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML           Document 34   Filed 09/04/26    Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   WO\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n 7                                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n 8\n 9   Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated            No. CV-25-04416-PHX-KML\n     2/18/2019,\n10                                                     ORDER\n                      Plaintiff,\n11\n     v.\n12\n     Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated, et al.,\n13\n                      Defendants.\n14\n15\n               The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) requires all motions\n16\n     seeking appointment as lead plaintiff be filed \u201cnot later than 60 days after the date on\n17\n     which\u201d notice of a pending class action is published. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). In\n18\n     this case, that 60-day deadline was January 26, 2026. Putative class member Peter\n19\n     Robinson filed his motion on that date, but another putative class member\u2014the Lovingier\n20\n     Family Trust\u2014filed a competing motion the following morning. The parties disagree\n21\n     whether the court can or should excuse the untimely filing. Assuming the statutory deadline\n22\n     can be extended in these circumstances, which is doubtful, the Lovingier Family has not\n23\n     met the demanding standard for doing so. Robinson is appointed as lead plaintiff.\n24\n          I.      Background\n25\n               This is a securities fraud action brought against defendants Sprouts, its Chief\n26\n     Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The allegations involve the CEO making\n27\n     overly-optimistic public statements regarding Sprouts\u2019 future business prospects. After\n28\n     more information was revealed, Sprouts\u2019 stock dropped approximately \u201c26.11% in the span\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34      Filed 09/04/26    Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   of just a single day.\u201d (Doc. 1 at 19.) The complaint was filed on November 24, 2025, and\n 2   notice of this suit was published on November 26, 2025. (Docs. 1, 17-3.) That publication\n 3   date meant motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were due on January 26, 2026.\n 4            On January 26, 2026, putative class member Peter Robinson filed a motion to be\n 5   appointed lead plaintiff. (Doc. 18.) Also on January 26, 2026, lead counsel for putative\n 6   class member the Lovingier Family sent its local counsel a finalized motion to have the\n 7   Lovingier Family appointed as lead plaintiff. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) Local counsel attempted to\n 8   file that motion on January 26, 2026, but was unable to do so because his \u201cparalegal had\n 9   not previously utilized [the attorney\u2019s] CM/ECF and/or PACER account(s) with\n10   Multifactor Authentication to make a filing.\u201d (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) The paralegal needed to\n11   speak with the attorney to complete the filing but for unexplained reasons could not reach\n12   him that evening. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) The paralegal and local counsel \u201cconnected via\n13   telephone early in the morning on January 27, 2026,\u201d and the motion on behalf of the\n14   Lovingier Family was filed at 7:27 a.m. on January 27, 2027. (Doc. 22.) Other putative\n15   class members also filed timely motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. (Docs. 16, 20.) One\n16   of those motions was withdrawn (Docs. 16, 23), and the other resulted in that putative class\n17   member concluding Robinson\u2014not the Lovingier Family\u2014was the \u201cpresumptive \u2018most\n18   adequate plaintiff\u2019\u201d (Doc. 27 at 2).\n19      II.      Analysis\n20            It is undisputed the Lovingier Family suffered a loss of $259,313.88 while Robinson\n21   suffered a loss of $188,976.61. (Doc. 28 at 10.) Because the largest loss is a significant\n22   factor in evaluating the appropriate lead plaintiff, determining who should be appointed\n23   largely comes down to whether the court should consider the Lovingier Family\u2019s motion\n24   timely filed.\n25            A. Timeliness of Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion\n26            As relevant here, the PSRLA requires two events at the beginning of a securities\n27   class action. First, within 20 days of the complaint being filed, notice must be provided to\n28   the putative class. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). And second, \u201cnot later than 60 days\n\n\n                                                 -2-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34      Filed 09/04/26     Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may\n 2   move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.\u201d 15 U.S.C.\n 3   \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). The Lovingier Family argues this 60-day deadline can be extended,\n 4   Robinson argues it cannot. Neither side has provided Ninth Circuit authority and district\n 5   courts across the country are split.\n 6          Some district courts have adopted an absolute rule that \u201cthe deadline for motions\n 7   for appointment as lead plaintiff is unequivocal and allows for no exceptions.\u201d Bender v.\n 8   Vertex Energy, Inc., No. 4-24-CV-290, 2024 WL 588445, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024)\n 9   (citing cases). Other district courts have concluded they \u201chave discretion to consider\n10   untimely motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in some circumstances.\u201d Id. at *10\n11   (citing cases). The Lovingier Family invokes the latter line of authority, but many of those\n12   cases did not involve the statutory deadline. For example, two cases involved a movant\n13   who failed to comply with a court-imposed deadline, but the motion still complied with the\n14   statutory   60-day    deadline.    Waterford    Twp.     Police   v.   Mattel,    Inc.,   No.\n15   17CV04732VAPKSX, 2017 WL 10667732, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (filed after\n16   4:00 p.m. court deadline but still on date motion was due based on statutory deadline);\n17   Ferreira v. Funko, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-02319-VAP-PJWX, 2020 WL 3246328, at *4 (C.D.\n18   Cal. June 11, 2020) (same). In permitting those motions, the courts were extending their\n19   own deadlines instead of the statute\u2019s. Another case cited by the Lovingier Family involved\n20   unique circumstances where a motion was timely filed, but the movant used the incorrect\n21   case number. GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc., No. 17-CV-06779-RS, 2018 WL\n22   1388488, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018); see also Bender, 2024 WL 58845, at *2, *6\n23   (movant timely filed notice in a different district). There are no similar circumstances here.\n24          There are a limited number of cases involving an extension of the statutory deadline\n25   of the sort the Lovingier Family seeks. Those courts have concluded they have discretion\n26   to extend the statutory deadline but do not identify that discretion\u2019s source. See Peters v.\n27   Jinkosolar Holding Co., No. 11 CIV. 7133 JPO, 2012 WL 946875, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.\n28   19, 2012) (not identifying legal basis for extension); Montesano v. Eros Int\u2019l PLC, No.\n\n\n                                                 -3-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34        Filed 09/04/26     Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   CV1914125JMVJAD, 2020 WL 1873015, at *9 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) (same). Bender\n 2   provides the clearest explanation in concluding the 60-day deadline is a \u201cclaims-processing\n 3   rule[]\u201d that is \u201csubject to equitable principles unless Congress clearly provides otherwise.\u201d\n 4   2024 WL 588445, at *10 (simplified). The Lovinger Family relies on this portion of Bender\n 5   to argue for an extension. (Doc. 30 at 5.) Assuming equitable tolling of the 60-day period\n 6   is available\u2014which is the minority view, and is doubtful given the statute\u2019s clear text\u2014\n 7   the Lovingier Family has not established it applies here.\n 8          A party \u201cseeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements:\n 9   (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary\n10   circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.\u201d Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582,\n11   588 (9th Cir. 2020) (simplified). The diligence prong requires the party seeking tolling to\n12   \u201cshow that he has been reasonably diligent in pursuing his rights not only while an\n13   impediment to filing caused by an extraordinary circumstance existed, but before and after\n14   as well, up to the time of filing.\u201d Id. at 598\u201399.\n15          The Lovingier Family\u2019s motion for appointment provided no explanation for the\n16   untimely filing. (Doc. 22-1.) Quite the opposite, it misstated that the Lovingier Family\n17   \u201cha[d] timely filed his motion within the 60-day period following publication of [the]\n18   Notice.\u201d (Doc. 22-1 at 3.) The Lovingier Family then waited nearly two weeks, until its\n19   response to the timely motions was due, to provide any explanation of what happened. (See\n20   Doc. 26-1 at 2.) And neither that explanation, nor the response accompanying it, recognized\n21   the Ninth Circuit\u2019s standard for equitable tolling or provided facts to meet that standard.\n22          The court assumes the last-minute difficulties with electronic filing could qualify as\n23   an \u201cextraordinary circumstance\u201d sufficient to meet the second element of the equitable-\n24   tolling test. But as to the first prong, the Lovingier Family would need to provide evidence\n25   that it \u201cacted diligently but had not been able to file earlier.\u201d Id. at 601. In other words, the\n26   Lovingier Family would need to explain its behavior leading up to the last-minute filing\n27   difficulties. The Lovingier Family\u2019s belated explanation lacked sufficient detail regarding\n28   counsel\u2019s diligence on the date of the filing\u2014for example, the paralegal\u2019s mysterious\n\n\n                                                   -4-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34       Filed 09/04/26    Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   inability to reach counsel for hours remains unexplained (Doc. 26-1 at 2)\u2014and provided\n 2   no evidence of its behavior leading up to the deadline. Because the Lovingier Family has\n 3   not carried its burden of establishing equitable tolling, the 60-day statutory deadline bars\n 4   the court from considering its motion.\n 5          B. Robinson as Lead Plaintiff\n 6          The PSLRA requires a \u201cthree-step process for the selection of lead plaintiff.\u201d In re\n 7   Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 899 (9th Cir. 2021). The first step of requiring notice has already\n 8   occurred. The second step requires the court \u201cdetermine which movant is the most adequate\n 9   plaintiff, which is defined as the plaintiff most capable of adequately representing the\n10   interests of class members.\u201d Id. (simplified). This requires the court identify \u201cwhich\n11   movant has the largest alleged losses and then determine whether that movant has made a\n12   prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality.\u201d Id. That movant is presumptively the lead\n13   plaintiff. Once a presumptive plaintiff is identified, step three allows other potential\n14   plaintiffs the \u201copportunity to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff\u2019s showing that it satisfies\n15   [the] typicality and adequacy requirements.\u201d In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir.\n16   2002). This \u201cpresumption may be rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported\n17   plaintiff class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff . . . will not fairly and\n18   adequately protect the interests of the class; or [ ] is subject to unique defenses that render\n19   such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.\u201d In re Mersho, 6 F.4th at 899\n20   (simplified).\n21          As the only remaining timely movant, Robinson has the \u201clargest loss,\u201d meaning the\n22   court need only evaluate whether he \u201chas made a prima facie showing of adequacy and\n23   typicality.\u201d Id. This determination \u201cis not adversarial\u201d and \u201cshould be based on only the\n24   movant\u2019s pleadings and declarations.\u201d Id.\n25          Beginning with \u201cadequacy,\u201d the court must evaluate \u201ctwo questions: (1) do the\n26   movant and its counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will\n27   the movant and its counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?\u201d Id. at\n28   899\u2013900 (simplified). There is no evidence of conflicts of interest with other class\n\n\n                                                  -5-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34       Filed 09/04/26     Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   members, and both Robinson and his counsel appear willing and able to prosecute this\n 2   action vigorously. Robinson has made a prima facie showing of adequacy.\n 3          \u201cThe test for typicality asks whether other members have the same or similar injury,\n 4   whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and\n 5   whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.\u201d Borteanu\n 6   v. Nikola Corp., 562 F. Supp. 3d 174, 181 (D. Ariz. 2021) (simplified). Robinson argues\n 7   his claims are typical because he \u201cpurchased the Company\u2019s securities at prices artificially\n 8   inflated due to Defendants\u2019 misrepresentations and omissions, and was damaged thereby.\u201d\n 9   (Doc. 18 at 7.) The present evidence shows Robinson suffered the same type of injuries\n10   based on the same conduct as other class members, so the requirement of typicality is met.\n11          Robinson has made a sufficient showing of adequacy and typicality, so he is\n12   presumptively the lead plaintiff. The final step is to assess whether the Lovingier Family\n13   has shown by \u201cthe preponderance of the evidence\u201d that Robinson should not be appointed.\n14   In re Crain Walnut Shelling, LP, 175 F.4th 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2026). The Lovingier\n15   Family ventures two arguments in support of its position. First, Robinson allegedly did not\n16   provide sufficient biographical information to allow the court to assess his adequacy.\n17   Second, Robinson\u2019s decision to retain three law firms to act as counsel establishes he is not\n18   adequate. Neither argument is convincing.\n19          Robinson \u201clives in Rochester, New York and has been investing for 15 years.\u201d (Doc.\n20   18 at 7.) He describes himself as working \u201cin the real estate industry\u201d (Doc. 18 at 7) and\n21   states he is \u201cwilling to serve as a representative party on behalf of a Class of investors . . .\n22   including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary\u201d (Doc. 18-4 at 2). The\n23   Lovingier Family argues Robinson\u2019s failure to provide additional biographical\n24   information, such as his \u201ceducational background,\u201d should preclude his appointment as\n25   lead plaintiff. (Doc. 26 at 11.) The Ninth Circuit has rejected the idea that a court can\n26   engage in a \u201cfreewheeling comparison of the parties competing for lead plaintiff,\u201d such as\n27   \u201cquestioning [each plaintiff] about their business acumen.\u201d In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at\n28   732. There is no requirement that Robinson provide more detailed information and the\n\n\n                                                  -6-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML         Document 34       Filed 09/04/26    Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n 1   Lovingier Family\u2019s first argument fails.1\n 2          The Lovingier Family\u2019s other argument attempting to rebut the presumption is that\n 3   Robinson retained three law firms to pursue this case. Although not entirely clear, the\n 4   Lovingier Family appears to believe its retention of two law firms was reasonable, but\n 5   Robinson\u2019s retention of three law firms establishes he should not be appointed lead\n 6   plaintiff. The Lovingier Family\u2019s argument again misapplies controlling Ninth Circuit\n 7   authority.\n 8          The court \u201chas no authority to select for the class what it considers to be the best\n 9   possible lawyer or the lawyer offering the best possible fee schedule. Indeed, the district\n10   court does not select class counsel at all.\u201d Id. The court\u2019s task is \u201conly to determine whether\n11   the presumptive lead plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel is so irrational, or so tainted by self-\n12   dealing or conflict of interest, as to cast genuine and serious doubt on that plaintiff\u2019s\n13   willingness or ability to perform the functions of lead plaintiff.\u201d Id. Here, Robinson has\n14   selected The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and the Schall Law Firm as \u201cCo-Lead Counsel,\u201d and\n15   Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as \u201cLiaison Counsel.\u201d (Doc. 18 at 2.) The Rosen Law Firm and\n16   the Schall Law Firm have extensive experience in securities litigation, and Martin and\n17   Bonnett routinely litigate matters in the District of Arizona. The Lovingier Family does not\n18   provide any evidence showing Robinson\u2019s choice to retain three firms, or these three firms\n19   in particular, comes close to \u201cirrational.\u201d Vague arguments that hiring three firms instead\n20   of two should preclude Robinson\u2019s appointment are not convincing. The Lovingier Family\n21   has not rebutted the presumption.\n22          Accordingly,\n23          IT IS ORDERED the Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs (Doc. 20, 22) are\n24   DENIED.\n25   1\n       The Lovingier Family cites a case from the Southern District of California that faulted a\n     movant for not including adequate biographical information when seeking appointment as\n26   the lead plaintiff. Camp v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 18-CV-1208-AJB-BLM, 2019 WL 277360,\n     at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019). In that case, the movant did not provide \u201cany basic details\n27   about himself, including where he lives or who he is specifically.\u201d Id. That movant also\n     made false statements and \u201csignificant errors\u201d in calculating his losses. Id. The present\n28   situation is different in that Robinson has identified where he lives and there are no\n     \u201csignificant errors\u201d in his filings.\n\n                                                  -7-\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-KML       Document 34       Filed 09/04/26    Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n 1          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff (Doc. 18) is\n 2   GRANTED. Peter Robinson is appointed lead plaintiff. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and\n 3   The Schall Law Firm are appointed as Co-Lead Counsel and Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. is\n 4   appointed as Liaison Counsel.\n 5          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within seven days of this order lead plaintiff and\n 6   defendants shall meet and confer, and file a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended\n 7   complaint and response thereto.\n 8                 Dated this 4th day of September, 2026.\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n\n                                                -8-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-05T12:20:24.549497-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025031432859","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Appoint AND Order on Motion to Appoint AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T12:41:08.354562-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-04T03:29:07.735454-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"12:07:13","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":" ORDER: The Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs (Doc.  20 ,  22 ) are DENIED.  ORDERED  the Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff (Doc.  18 ) is GRANTED. Peter  Robinson is  appointed lead plaintiff. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and The Schall  Law Firm are  ap pointed as Co-Lead Counsel and Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. is  appointed as  Liaison Counsel.   FURTHER ORDERED within seven days of this order lead plaintiff and   defendants shall meet and confer, and file a proposed schedule for the filing of   an amended complaint and response thereto. Signed by Judge Krissa M Lanham on 9/4/26. (EJA)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475933181/","id":475933181,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491480560/","id":491480560,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/33/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-08-26T15:59:21.564808-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T15:59:21.578981-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025031384031","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Reassigning Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T15:59:21.514970-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.736439-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"15:23:31","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":129,"description":"ORDER that this matter be reassigned, by random lot, to another judge in the District of Arizona. FURTHER ORDERED that this matter has been reassigned by random lot to the Honorable Krissa M. Lanham. All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing shall bear the following complete case number: CV-25-04416-PHX-KML. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 8/26/26. (EJA) (Entered: 08/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469838481/","id":469838481,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485191597/","id":485191597,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/32/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-07-06T11:59:39.067505-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-06T11:59:39.077737-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025031118337","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address/Email/Firm Name (Attorney)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-06T11:59:39.032822-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T22:33:34.712467-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-06","time_filed":"11:29:07","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":127,"description":"NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/EMAIL/FIRM NAME by Andrew J Brown. (Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 07/06/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462032992/","id":462032992,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477138896/","id":477138896,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.828115-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.553993-07:00","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":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.807330-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.528218-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Phillip Kim on behalf of Movant Peter Robinson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462032991/","id":462032991,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477138895/","id":477138895,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.308613-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.291054-07:00","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":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.280544-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.264503-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Christopher S Turner on behalf of Defendants Jack L Sinclair, Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated, Curtis Valentine. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462032990/","id":462032990,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477138894/","id":477138894,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.227636-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.251744-07:00","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":"2026-04-27T05:12:32.205435-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.215920-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Michele D Johnson on behalf of Defendants Jack L Sinclair, Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated, Curtis Valentine. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462032989/","id":462032989,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477138893/","id":477138893,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:31.892039-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:29.946167-07:00","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":"2026-04-27T05:12:31.866468-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:29.921990-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Andrew J Brown, Adam Lachlan Rosen on behalf of Movant Peter Robinson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462032988/","id":462032988,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477138892/","id":477138892,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T05:12:30.081535-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:26.447414-07:00","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":"2026-04-27T05:12:30.047477-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:26.228647-07:00","date_filed":"2025-12-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Adam M Apton on behalf of Plaintiff Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454585327/","id":454585327,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469505433/","id":469505433,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-02-20T14:38:44.351506-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-20T14:38:44.363344-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-20T14:38:44.322280-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-20T14:38:44.322299-08:00","date_filed":"2026-02-20","time_filed":"14:45:58","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454298315/","id":454298315,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469212403/","id":469212403,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/31/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-02-18T15:21:04.228430-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.495150-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025030457807","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Association of Counsel","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-18T15:21:04.053315-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.464921-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-18","time_filed":"16:16:41","entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":119,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Lynn Kroll on behalf of Peter Robinson. (Kroll, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454135117/","id":454135117,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469044283/","id":469044283,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/30/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-02-17T15:06:31.114486-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:40:52.213370-07:00","sha1":"5dd73d11cc095508fc804dcab2fa9642637d26ab","page_count":8,"file_size":235021,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT          Document 30     Filed 02/17/26   Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    DON BIVENS, PLLC\n     Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n2    15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n3    Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n     Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n4    don@donbivens.com\n5\n     Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n6    Movant the Lovingier Family\n7    KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n8    Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n     250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n9    New York, NY 10177\n     Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n10\n     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n11   kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n12   Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n13   the Lovingier Family and\n     Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n14\n15\n                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n17\n                                               )\n18    Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A         )      No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n      DTD 02/18/2019, Individually and on )\n19\n      Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )\n20                                             )      REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN\n                         Plaintiff,            )      FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE\n21                                             )      LOVINGIER FAMILY\u2019S MOTION\n             v.                                )      FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n22\n      Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Jack L. )         PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS\n23                                             )      SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n      Sinclair, and Curtis Valentine,\n                                               )      AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE\n24\n                         Defendants.           )      COMPETING MOTIONS\n25                                             )\n                                               )\n26\n27\n28\n\f           Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT     Document 30       Filed 02/17/26    Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1        I. INTRODUCTION\n2            With asserted losses of $(259,313.88), significantly higher than any other movant, Lead\n3    Plaintiff Movant the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988 (the \u201cLovingier Family\u201d)\n4    is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff in this Action. Peter Robinson, the only other remaining\n5    movant, 1 has not rebutted this presumption. Robinson\u2019s opposition (ECF No. 28) wastes much\n6    ink repeatedly raising one sole issue against the Lovingier Family: its delayed filing. However,\n7    one of the three law firms representing Robinson knows firsthand that the time limits in the\n8    PSLRA can be relaxed under certain circumstances. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (\u201cRosen\u201d)\n9    previously represented lead plaintiff movants in a class action securities case who filed a\n10   motion for appointment more than two weeks after the PSLRA deadline, but were nevertheless\n11   appointed lead plaintiff with Rosen approved as lead counsel. See Bender v. Vertex Energy,\n12   Inc., No. 4:24-cv-290, 2024 WL 588445 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024). As evidenced by the\n13   Supplemental Declaration of Don Bivens (ECF No. 26.1, the \u201cBivens Declaration\u201d), the\n14   Lovingier Family sought in good faith to file its motion before the deadline but, due to a\n15   technical error, ultimately filed its motion at 7:27 a.m. the following morning (approximately\n16   7.5 hours late). This delay of mere hours neither prejudiced the competing movants nor\n17   obstructed the Court in making its Lead Plaintiff decision. Thus, the delayed filing cannot \u201crob\n18   the district court of [its] discretion\u201d to appoint the Lovingier Family\u2014the movant with the\n19   greatest losses, and thus the greatest stake in this litigation\u2014as Lead Plaintiff. Waterford Twp.\n20   Police v. Mattel, Inc., No. 17-cv-04732, 2017 WL 10667732, at *4 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29,\n21   2017). The brief delay does not rebut the presumption that the Lovingier Family is the most\n22   adequate plaintiff\u2014no matter how many times Robinson repeats that it does.\n23           Further, the Lovingier Family satisfies the adequacy and typicality requirements of\n24   Rule 23 and presents no unique defenses that render it incapable of adequately representing\n25\n26\n27\n     1\n      Movant The Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A DTD 02/18/2019 withdrew its motion (ECF\n     No. 23) and the group of Carolle Poudrier and Leslie Rotness filed a notice of non-opposition\n28   (ECF No. 27).\n\n                                                    1\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT       Document 30       Filed 02/17/26    Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    the Class. The same cannot be said of Robinson, who provided the Court with no evidence to\n2    support his adequacy, and seeks to saddle the Class with three law firms, potentially leading\n3    to a lawyer-driven litigation.\n4           For these reasons, and the reasons set forth herein, the Lovingier Family should be\n5    appointed Lead Plaintiff and its selection of Lead Counsel should be approved.\n6    II. ARGUMENT\n7           A.      The Lovingier Family is the Presumptive \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d and\n8                   Should be Appointed Lead Plaintiff\n\n9           When determining which movant to appoint as lead plaintiff, \u201cthe district court must\n10   compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to\n11   gain from the lawsuit.\u201d In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2002). \u201cIt must then\n12   focus its attention on that plaintiff and determine, based on the information he has provided in\n13   his pleadings and declarations, whether he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in\n14   particular those of \u2018typicality\u2019 and \u2018adequacy.\u2019\u201d Id. (emphasis in original).\n15          Here, with losses of $(259,313.88), the Lovingier Family unquestionably has the largest\n16   financial stake out of any of the lead plaintiff movants in this matter\u2014exceeding Robinson\u2019s\n17   asserted losses of $(188,976.61) by more than 25%. See ECF No. 22-4, ECF No. 18-5. The\n18   Lovingier Family\u2019s claims arise from the same course of conduct as the putative Class\n19   members, there are no potential conflicts between it and the other Class members, and it has\n20   retained experienced counsel to represent the Class. Therefore, the Lovingier Family has made\n21   the required prima facie showing that it satisfies the adequacy and typicality requirements of\n22   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See Tenneson v. Nikola Corp., No. 23-cv-02131, 2024 WL 905244, at *3\n23   (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23-cv-02131, 2024 WL\n24   1796119 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2024). Moreover, Terry Clay Lovingier and Barbara Kaye\n25   Lovingier (the Lovingier Family\u2019s trust\u2019s co-trustees) have submitted a declaration providing\n26   biographical information, further supporting the Lovingier Family\u2019s adequacy. ECF No. 22-6.\n27   As such, the Lovingier Family is the presumptive \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d Cavanaugh, 306\n28   F.3d at 730.\n\n                                                    2\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 30       Filed 02/17/26    Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1           B.     Robinson Has Not Rebutted the Presumption that the Lovingier Family is\n2                  the \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d\n\n3           The presumption that the movant with the largest financial loss is the most adequate\n4    plaintiff \u201cmay be rebutted \u2018only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that\n5    the presumptively most adequate plaintiff ... will not fairly and adequately protect the interests\n6    of the class; or [ ] is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of\n7    adequately representing the class.\u2019\u201d In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 899 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 15\n8    U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)\u2013(bb)). \u201cThat the presumption is rebuttable does not mean\n9    that it may be set aside for any reason that the court may deem sufficient.\u201d Cavanaugh, 306\n10   F.3d at 729 n. 2. Rather, the PSLRA \u201crequires proof that the presumptive lead plaintiff is not\n11   adequate.\u201d Mersho, 6 F.4th at 899.\n12          Robinson has submitted no \u201cproof\u201d that the Lovingier Family is not adequate. His only\n13   argument\u2014raised repeatedly in his opposition to the Lovingier Family\u2019s motion\u2014relates to\n14   the delayed filing. However, as explained in the Bivens Declaration, the delay was due to a\n15   technical error that has since been resolved. See ECF No. 26.1. This error neither speaks to the\n16   Lovingier Family\u2019s adequacy nor raises any unique defenses rendering the Lovingier Family\n17   incapable of representing the Class.\n18          As Robinson admits (see ECF No. 28 at 6), a number of courts have appointed lead\n19   plaintiff movants who claimed the largest financial losses but filed untimely motions. See, e.g.,\n20   Waterford Twp. Police, 2017 WL 10667732, at *8 (appointing movant who filed his motion\n21   several hours late); Ferreira v. Funko, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-02319, 2020 WL 3246328, at *4 (C.D.\n22   Cal. June 11, 2020) (same); Montesano v. Eros Int\u2019l PLC, No. 19-cv-14125, 2020 WL\n23   1873015, at *9 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) (appointing movant who submitted its motion one day\n24   late); Peters v. Jinkosolar Holding Co., No. 11-cv-7133, 2012 WL 946875, at *9 (S.D.N.Y.\n25   Mar. 19, 2012) (appointing group which moved for appointment several weeks after the\n26   deadline). In fact, one of the three law firms representing Robinson\u2014Rosen\u2014has firsthand\n27   experience representing clients who submitted an application for appointment as lead plaintiff\n28   after the PSLRA-imposed deadline. See Bender, 2024 WL 588445, at *13. In that case, the\n\n                                                     3\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT       Document 30       Filed 02/17/26    Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    court was persuaded by Rosen\u2019s arguments that the timing of the filing was \u201cexcusable,\u201d\n2    appointed Rosen\u2019s clients as lead plaintiff, and approved Rosen as lead counsel. Id. at *6.\n3           While Robinson correctly points out that the factual circumstances in some of these\n4    cases differ from the matter at hand because the deadline was imposed by the court rather than\n5    the PSLRA, he does not cite one case differentiating a court-imposed deadline from that set\n6    by the PSLRA. In fact, the reasoning from each of the cases appointing lead plaintiffs who\n7    filed untimely motions is generally applicable. For example, in Bender v. Vertex Energy, the\n8    court explained, \u201cDistrict courts have discretion to consider untimely motions for appointment\n9    as lead plaintiff in some circumstances\u201d because \u201cclaims-processing rules\u2014\u2018rules that seek to\n10   promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural\n11   steps at certain specified times\u2019\u2014are subject to equitable principles unless Congress \u2018clearly\u2019\n12   provides otherwise.\u201d 2024 WL 588445, at *10 (collecting cases).\n13          While Robinson does cite several out-of-district cases finding the PSLRA\u2019s deadline to\n14   be absolute, these cases present drastically different circumstances from the case at hand. For\n15   example, in Carson v. Clarent Corp., No. 01-cv-03361, 2001 WL 1782712, at *2 (N.D. Cal.\n16   Dec. 14, 2001), the court rejected a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff that was filed\n17   more than two weeks after the deadline, and in Stone v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., No. 11-\n18   cv-16, 2011 WL 13237569, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2011), the court rejected a motion was\n19   filed twelve weeks after deadline. These weeks-delayed motions contravened the intent of the\n20   PSLRA\u2019s 60-day deadline: \u201cto ensure that the lead plaintiff is appointed at the earliest possible\n21   time and to expedite the lead plaintiff process.\u201d Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d\n22   1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Here, on the other hand, the filing of the Lovingier Family\u2019s\n23   motion was delayed by a mere 7.5 hours\u2014before the start of normal business hours on the day\n24   following the deadline. The delay neither prejudiced the other movants nor obstructed the\n25   Court in \u201censuring that the lead plaintiff is appointed at the earliest possible time.\u201d Bender,\n26   2024 WL 588445, at *10.\n27          Robinson also cites an out-of-circuit bankruptcy case where an attorney was unable to\n28   file a timely motion to reconsider a court\u2019s order due to issues with multifactor authentication\n\n                                                    4\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 30        Filed 02/17/26    Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    (\u201cMFA\u201d). See ECF No. 28 at n. 4 (citing In re: David James Farnham, No. 24-bk-30325, 2025\n2    WL 2612637, at *2 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2025)). However, Farnham can be easily\n3    differentiated from the case at hand because the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure\n4    \u201cexpressly forbid[] a court from extending the time\u201d to submit the type of motion for\n5    reconsideration submitted late in Farnham. 2025 WL 2612637, at *2. Unlike in Farnham, the\n6    PSLRA does not expressly forbid a court from considering late-filed motions for appointment\n7    as lead plaintiff, particularly where \u201crefusing to consider the motion [would] undermine the\n8    PSLRA\u2019s preference for appointing the plaintiff with the greatest financial stake in the\n9    outcome.\u201d Bender, 2024 WL 588445, at *10-11.\n10          Robinson\u2019s opposition further states: \u201cThere is no affidavit, declaration, or letter from\n11   the Lovingier Trust\u2019s counsel explaining why its motion was filed late or what steps have been\n12   taken to prevent a repeat of that mistake.\u201d ECF No. 28 at 6-7. However, the Lovingier Family\n13   submitted the Bivens Declaration (ECF No. 26.1)\u2014which explained that the late filing was\n14   due to a technical error related to the recent requirement of the use of MFA, and that steps had\n15   already been taken to remedy the mistake\u2014before Robinson filed his opposition. See Second\n16   Supplemental Declaration of Don Bivens, Exhibits A, B. While ignoring the Bivens\n17   Declaration, Robinson admits that courts accept late filings where \u201ccounsel promptly\n18   explained the reason for lateness, often technical or ministerial, and described remedial steps\n19   to ensure future compliance\u201d (ECF No. 28 at 6). That is exactly what happened here. The slight\n20   delay was caused by a technical issue, and remedial steps have been implemented to avoid\n21   similar issues in the future (ECF No. 26-1 \u00b6\u00b6 6-8).\n22          Finally, Robinson states, \u201cno prejudice will result to the class from barring the\n23   Lovingier Trust Motion from further consideration.\u201d ECF No. 28 at 8. But this statement is\n24   contrary to the letter and spirit of the PSLRA, the purpose of which is to \u201cprotect[] investors\n25   who join class actions . . . by giving control of the litigation to lead plaintiffs with substantial\n26   holdings of the securities of the issuer.\u201d H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-369, 32, see also Barnet v. Elan\n27   Corp., 236 F.R.D. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (\u201cby enacting the PSLRA, Congress sought to\n28   encourage class members with the largest purported losses to act as lead plaintiffs in private\n\n                                                      5\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT       Document 30       Filed 02/17/26    Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    securities litigation.\u201d). Consistent with this intent, the court should appoint the movant with\n2    the largest financial losses who also satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule\n3    23\u2014the Lovingier Family. See Montesano, 2020 WL 1873015, at *9 (\u201cWhile [movant] did\n4    make a procedural mistake, overlooking that misstep is more in keeping with the policy\n5    intentions of the PSLRA than punishing [movant] by enforcing a procedural bar.\u201d) (internal\n6    citation omitted).\n7           C.     Robinson Does Not Satisfy the Adequacy Requirement\n8           Because the Lovingier Family is the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff,\u201d and this presumption\n9    has not been rebutted, the question of whether Robinson satisfies the typicality and adequacy\n10   requirements of Rule 23 should not be reached. See Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 (once a court\n11   had determined the most adequate plaintiff, \u201c[i]t must then focus its attention on that\n12   plaintiff\u201d). However, if the Court were to consider these factors, it would find Robinson has\n13   not demonstrated his adequacy.\n14          First, Robinson proposes three different law firms to represent the Class\u2014Rosen and\n15   The Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel and Martin & Bonnet P.L.L.C. as Liaison Counsel\n16   (ECF No. 18 at 8). Robinson has not explained the necessity or value of having so many firms,\n17   nor has he explained what measures will be taken to avoid duplicative work and ensure\n18   counsel\u2019s fees remain reasonable. See In re PolarityTE, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:18-CV-510-\n19   JNP, 2019 WL 220129, at *4 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2019) (\u201c[Movant] has entirely failed to justify\n20   the appointment of three separate law firms as counsel in this matter. This court is concerned\n21   that the appointment of three law firms will only lead to exorbitant legal fees and duplicative\n22   filings.\u201d). Additionally, courts have rejected movants represented by multiple firms, as it\n23   \u201csuggests that counsel, rather than the [movant], would control this litigation, in contravention\n24   of the PSLRA\u2019s intent.\u201d In re Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 209 F.R.D. 447, 452\n25   (C.D. Cal. 2002).\n26          Further, in his initial motion, Robinson vaguely stated he \u201cworks in the real estate\n27   industry\u201d (ECF No. 18 at 7) but neglected to file a declaration supporting this statement or\n28   containing the biographical information necessary to enable the Court to make an informed\n\n                                                    6\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 30       Filed 02/17/26     Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\n1    determination as to his adequacy. This dearth of personal information was not remedied in his\n2    opposition papers and militates against a finding Robinson\u2019s adequacy. See Perez v. HEXO\n3    Corp., 2020 WL 905753, at *3 (finding movant\u2019s failure to provide basic information,\n4    including educational background, raised skepticism that movant \u201cpossesses the requisite\n5    sophistication to serve as lead plaintiff in this action\u201d). The lack of a declaration signed by Mr.\n6    Robinson further suggests that counsel\u2014rather than Mr. Robinson\u2014are steering the ship.\n7    III.   CONCLUSION\n8           For the foregoing reasons, the Lovingier Family respectfully requests that this Court:\n9    (1) appoint the Lovingier Family to serve as Lead Plaintiff; (2) deny all other competing\n10   motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, including that of Peter Robinson; (3) approve the\n11   Lovingier Family\u2019s selection of KSF as Lead Counsel for the Class; and (4) grant such other\n12   and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n13\n14   DATED: February 17, 2026                    Respectfully submitted,\n15                                               /s/ Don Bivens\n16                                               DON BIVENS, PLLC\n                                                 Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n17\n                                                 15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n18                                               Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n                                                 Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n19                                               don@donbivens.com\n20                                               Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n                                                 Movant the Lovingier Family\n21\n                                                 KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n22                                               Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n23                                               250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n                                                 New York, NY 10177\n24                                               Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n                                                 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n25\n                                                 kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n26                                               Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n27                                               the Lovingier Family and Proposed\n                                                 Lead Counsel for the Class\n28\n\n                                                     7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:16.363500-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025030449934","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479560872/","id":479560872,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/30/1/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-05-18T09:21:16.675219-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T04:12:36.405620-07:00","sha1":"49f4600b2feef19e0366e9de85ad9203acf24ae2","page_count":2,"file_size":226884,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Docusign Envelope ID: 69D710E7-65AF-4B1B-A2D2-4833424B4CCB\n                    Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT             Document 30-1   Filed 02/17/26   Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                 DON BIVENS, PLLC\n           1\n                 Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n           2     15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n                 Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n           3     Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n           4     don@donbivens.com\n\n           5     Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n                 Movant the Lovingier Family\n           6\n           7     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n                 Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n           8     250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n           9     New York, NY 10177\n                 Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n         10      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n                 kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n         11\n         12      Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n                 the Lovingier Family and\n         13      Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n         14\n                                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n         15\n                                                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n         16\n                                                             )\n         17         Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A         )     No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n         18         DTD 02/18/2019, Individually and on )\n                    Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )\n         19                                                  )     SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL\n                                       Plaintiff,            )     DECLARATION OF DON BIVENS IN\n         20                                                  )     FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE\n                           v.                                )     LOVINGIER FAMILY\u2019S MOTION\n         21\n         22         Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Jack L. )        FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n                    Sinclair, and Curtis Valentine,          )     PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS\n         23                                                  )     SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n                                       Defendants.           )\n         24                                                  )\n                                                             )\n         25\n         26\n         27\n         28\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 69D710E7-65AF-4B1B-A2D2-4833424B4CCB\n                    Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT             Document 30-1   Filed 02/17/26   Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n           1             I, Don Bivens, hereby declare as follows:\n           2             1.      I am the managing partner of the law firm of Don Bivens, PLLC, local counsel\n           3     for Lead Plaintiff Movant the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988 (the \u201cLovingier\n           4     Family\u201d), which seeks appointment as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21 of the Securities\n           5     Exchange Act of 1934 in the above-captioned Action.\n           6             2.      I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.\n           7             3.      I submit this Supplemental Declaration in further support of the Lovingier\n           8     Family\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of its Selection of Lead\n           9     Counsel (see ECF No. 22, the \u201cMotion\u201d).\n         10              4.      Attached hereto as the exhibits indicated are true and correct copies of the\n         11      following:\n         12              Exhibit A:       A Notice of Electronic Filing showing that the Lovingier Family\u2019s\n                                          opposition papers, including the Supplemental Declaration of Don\n         13                               Bivens, were electronically filed at 2:13 p.m. MST on February 9,\n         14                               2026.\n                         Exhibit B:       A Notice of Electronic Filing showing that Peter Robinson\u2019s\n         15\n                                          opposition papers were electronically filed at 6:48 p.m. MST on\n         16                               February 9, 2026.\n         17              I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America\n         18      that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n         19              Executed on February 17, 2026, in Scottsdale, Arizona.\n         20\n         21\n                                                                            /s/____________\n         22                                                                   Don Bivens\n         23\n         24\n         25\n         26\n         27\n         28\n\n                                                                   2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:27.576928-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"025030449935","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Attachment SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DON BIVENS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF T","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479560873/","id":479560873,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/30/2/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-05-18T09:21:16.688364-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T04:19:20.502084-07:00","sha1":"d82030024d6a435aac2efaaaa0f6c0a2783325bf","page_count":3,"file_size":485256,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:30.284256-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"025030449936","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Bivens Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479560874/","id":479560874,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/30/3/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-05-18T09:21:16.699588-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T03:43:44.065609-07:00","sha1":"fcdbc1307849a1542a8bfafd52d6455c306ce112","page_count":3,"file_size":348575,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.30.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT   Document 30-3   Filed 02/17/26   Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                  Exhibit B\n\f                      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                  Document 30-3              Filed 02/17/26           Page 2 of 3\n\nActivity in Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A\nDated 2/18/2019 v. Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated et al Response\nin Opposition to Motion\n\n  From: azddb_responses@azd.uscourts.gov\n  Date: February 9, 2026 at 7:49 PM CST\n  To: azddb_nefs@azd.uscourts.gov\n  Subject: Activity in Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019 v. Sprouts Farmers Market\n  Incorporated et al Response in Opposition to Motion\n\n\n\nThis is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is\nunattended.\n***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case\n(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the\nfiler. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if\nthe referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.\n\n                                                                   U.S. District Court\n\n                                                                DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n\nNotice of Electronic Filing\n\nThe following transaction was entered by Kroll, Jennifer on 2/9/2026 at 6:48 PM MST and filed on 2/9/2026\nCase Name:          Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019 v. Sprouts Farmers Market Incorporated et al\nCase Number:        2:25-cv-04416-JJT\nFiler:           Peter Robinson\nDocument Number: 28\n\nDocket Text:\nRESPONSE in Opposition re: [20] MOTION to Appoint Counsel , [22] MOTION to Appoint AS\nLEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL filed by Peter\nRobinson. (Kroll, Jennifer)\n\n\n2:25-cv-04416-JJT Notice has been electronically mailed to:\n\nAdam Lachlan Rosen       adam@schallfirm.com\n\nAdam M Apton         aapton@zlk.com\n\nAndrew J Brown       andrew@schallfirm.com\n\nCorey D McGeHee        corey.mcgehee@lw.com, Khadijah.Fields@lw.com, kristen.fechner@lw.com\n\nDonald Bivens     don@donbivens.com, gabriel@donbivens.com, max@donbivens.com\n\nGary A Gotto     ggotto@kellerrohrback.com, kkendrick@kellerrohrback.com, mjohnston@kellerrohrback.com\n\nScott H Zwillinger    scott.zwillinger@zwfirm.com, brittany.thaler@zwfirm.com, docketing@zwfirm.com\n\nSusan Joan Martin      smartin@martinbonnett.com, kpasley@martinbonnett.com, lfrie@martinbonnett.com\n\f                    Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                  Document 30-3              Filed 02/17/26             Page 3 of 3\n\n2:25-cv-04416-JJT Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:\n\nThe following document(s) are associated with this transaction:\n\nDocument description:Main Document\nOriginal filename:n/a\nElectronic document Stamp:\n[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1096393563 [Date=2/9/2026] [FileNumber=28438361-0\n] [9fbe9f025d54650b091f8c8020ebbebfdcbc4b78edf29abc84d5bf12430a9751b52\na2299738a4962eef48c1835308466f0a513bc09d04a9b48e0473f43d77ad3]]\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:41.512848-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"025030449937","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Bivens Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-17T15:06:31.075356-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.391827-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-17","time_filed":"15:13:28","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-17.003","pacer_sequence_number":115,"description":"REPLY to Response to Motion re: 22 MOTION to Appoint AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL, 18 MOTION to Appoint Peter Robinson as Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel filed by Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DON BIVENS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE LOVINGIER FAMILYS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL, # 2 Exhibit Bivens Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Bivens Exhibit B)(Bivens, Donald) (Entered: 02/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454123648/","id":454123648,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/469032584/","id":469032584,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/29/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-02-17T14:05:22.719527-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:40:54.398533-07:00","sha1":"ee15bfd95e940bcaf745e2c7913f9db6beb1a41b","page_count":14,"file_size":333718,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.29.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.29.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 29     Filed 02/17/26    Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   MARTIN & BONNETT P.L.L.C.\n     Susan Martin (AZ#014226)\n 2\n     Jennifer Kroll (AZ#019859)\n 3   4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185\n     Phoenix, Arizona 85018\n 4   Telephone: (602) 240-6900\n 5   Fax: (602) 240-2345\n     Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com\n 6          jkroll@martinbonnett.com\n 7\n     [Proposed] Liaison Counsel for Movant and the\n 8   Class\n\n 9   [Additional counsel on signature page.]\n10\n\n11                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n12                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n\n13   Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dtd         Case No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n     02/18/2019, Individually and on behalf of\n14\n     all others similarly situated,\n15                                                CLASS ACTION\n        Plaintiff,\n16\n\n17\n                                                  MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S\n18          vs.                                   REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF\n19\n                                                  MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS\n                                                  LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL\n20   Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.; Jack L.        OF COUNSEL\n     Sinclair; Curtis Valentine,\n21\n\n22      Defendants.\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n      MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n                                        APPROVAL OF COUNSEL\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                    Document 29               Filed 02/17/26          Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n 1                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n     INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1\n 3\n     ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 2\n 4\n\n 5            I.        The Lovingier Trust is Statutorily Ineligible Under the PSLRA .................... 2\n\n 6            II.       The Lovingier Trust\u2019s Authorities Do Not Overcome the PSLRA\u2019s\n                        Mandate for Timely Filing .............................................................................. 3\n 7\n              III.      Counsel\u2019s Explanatory Declaration Provides No Basis to Excuse\n 8\n                        Noncompliance ................................................................................................ 4\n 9\n              IV.       Robinson Satisfies Rule 23(a) ......................................................................... 6\n10\n     CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 9\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                                      i\n       MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n                                         APPROVAL OF COUNSEL\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                  Document 29              Filed 02/17/26         Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n 1                                            TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2\n\n 3   CASES\n\n 4   Argentine Republic v. Nat\u2019l Grid PLC,\n       637 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 3\n 5\n\n 6   Bender v. Vertex Energy, Inc.,\n       2024 WL 588445 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024) ................................................................... 3, 4\n 7\n     Borteanu v. Nikola Corp.,\n 8\n       507 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (D. Ariz. 2020) ........................................................................... 7, 8\n 9\n     Camp v. Qualcomm Inc.,\n10     2019 WL 277360 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) ....................................................................... 8\n11\n     Carson v. Clarent Corp.,\n12     2001 WL 1782712 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2001) ................................................................... 3\n13\n     Emerson v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc.,\n14    2018 WL 839382 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2018) .................................................................. 3, 4\n\n15   GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc.,\n16\n      2018 WL 1388488 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ............................................................... 3, 4\n\n17   In re Boeing Co. Aircraft Sec. Litig.,\n       2019 WL 6052399 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) .................................................................... 8\n18\n\n19   In re Cavanaugh,\n       306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................... 7, 8, 9\n20\n\n21\n     In re Farnham,\n       2025 WL 2612637 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2025) ................................................................ 5, 6\n22\n     In re Mersho,\n23     6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ 1, 8, 9\n24\n     In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n25     67 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ohio 1999) ............................................................................ 2, 3\n26\n     In re Tezos Sec. Litig.,\n27     2019 WL 2183448 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) ..................................................................... 2\n28\n\n                                                                  ii\n       MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n                                         APPROVAL OF COUNSEL\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                     Document 29                Filed 02/17/26          Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   Kasilingam v. Tilray, Inc.,\n       2020 WL 4530357 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020) ................................................................. 7, 8\n 2\n\n 3   Montesano v. Eros International PLC,\n      2020 WL 1873015 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2019) ....................................................................... 6\n 4\n\n 5   Patel v. Reata Pharm., Inc.,\n       549 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2021) ............................................................................... 7\n 6\n     Perez v. HEXO Corp.,\n 7\n       2020 WL 905753 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020) ...................................................................... 8\n 8\n     Reitan v. China Mobile Games & Ent. Grp., Ltd.,\n 9     68 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).............................................................................. 3, 4\n10\n     Stone v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.,\n11     2011 WL 13237569 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2011) ............................................................... 3\n12\n     Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc.,\n13    2017 WL 10667732 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) ............................................................ 3, 4\n\n14   Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc.,\n15\n       682 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ......................................................................... 2, 3\n\n16   STATUTES\n\n17   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(2)(A).................................................................................................... 6\n18   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(3)(A)\u2013(B) ............................................................................................ 2\n19\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(3)(B)(i), (iii) ........................................................................................ 1\n20\n\n21\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) ................................................................................... 6\n\n22   RULES\n\n23   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ............................................................................................................... 1, 3\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                                      iii\n       MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n                                         APPROVAL OF COUNSEL\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 29          Filed 02/17/26   Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n 1            INTRODUCTION\n 2            Two movants remain seeking appointment as lead plaintiff: Peter Robinson\n 3   (\u201cRobinson\u201d) and the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988 (the \u201cLovingier\n 4   Trust\u201d). Only Robinson has complied with the threshold requirements of the Private\n 5   Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) and is therefore the only eligible\n 6   movant.\n 7            The Lovingier Trust itself recites the governing standard: the Court \u201cshall appoint as\n 8   Lead Plaintiff the movant who: (1) files the complaint or a timely motion for appointment\n 9   as lead plaintiff; (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (3)\n10   otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d\n11   Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion for\n12   Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel and in\n13   Opposition to the Competing Motions for Appointment (hereinafter, the \u201cLovingier\n14   Opposition\u201d) at 1 (citing 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(3)(B)(i), (iii)).1 The Lovingier Trust fails at\n15   the first step. It undisputedly filed its motion on January 27, 2026\u2014after the January 26,\n16   2026 statutory deadline\u2014and now asks this Court to adopt the most permissive construction\n17   of the PSLRA\u2019s 60\u2011day filing requirement yet recognized in order to excuse its\n18   noncompliance.\n19            The Lovingier Trust\u2019s attack on Robinson as the presumptive lead plaintiff is contrary\n20   to the facts and Ninth Circuit law. First, while admitting Robinson\u2019s filing complies with\n21   the PSLRA, Lovingier Trust claims Robinson\u2019s failure to provide yet another declaration\n22   that sets out his \u201ceducational background\u201d renders him atypical and inadequate under Rule\n23   23. Doc. No. 26 at 7. No case so holds. In fact, the Ninth Circuit has directly refuted the\n24   argument that the court can speculate about a presumptive lead plaintiff\u2019s typicality and\n25   adequacy. In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 902 (9th Cir. 2021). And its contention that the court\n26   cannot appoint two firms as co-lead counsel is just silly. It is common in complex class\n27\n\n28   1\n         All emphasis is added and internal citations omitted, unless otherwise stated.\n                                                      1\n         MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND\n                                           APPROVAL OF COUNSEL\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 29         Filed 02/17/26   Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   action litigation, and Lovingier Trust\u2019s own counsel has itself moved to be appointed co-\n 2   lead counsel many, many times.\n 3          ARGUMENT\n 4          I.     The Lovingier Trust is Statutorily Ineligible Under the PSLRA\n 5          As Robinson pointed out in his Opposition brief, the PSLRA\u2019s lead plaintiff\n 6   framework is sequential: only movants who file within the 60\u2011day statutory window are\n 7   eligible to be considered for appointment, and only among that pool does the Court then\n 8   identify the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(3)(A)\u2013(B); see In re Tezos Sec.\n 9   Litig., 2019 WL 2183448, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (to follow the PSLRA, courts\n10   \u201cconsider timely applicants before moving beyond the noticed pool\u201d). Timely filing is\n11   therefore a threshold statutory prerequisite, not a discretionary factor that can be weighed or\n12   relaxed after the fact. Courts applying the PSLRA have repeatedly described compliance\n13   with the 60\u2011day deadline as \u201cthe threshold requirement to serve as lead plaintiff\u201d and have\n14   held that noncompliance forecloses consideration regardless of loss size. Zhu v. UCBH\n15   Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing In re Telxon Corp. Sec.\n16   Litig., 67 F. Supp. 2d 803, 818 (N.D. Ohio 1999). There is no need to \u201crebut [the most\n17   adequate plaintiff] presumption\u201d on the basis of untimeliness because the Lovingier Trust is\n18   not the presumptive lead plaintiff. Lovingier Opposition, at 1. It failed at step one.\n19          The Lovingier Trust acknowledges that January 26, 2026 was the deadline \u201cfor\n20   motions for appointment as lead plaintiff to be filed in this action,\u201d and attaches the\n21   November 26, 2025 PSLRA notice stating that class members had \u201cthe right to move the\n22   Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff no later than January 26, 2026.\u201d Memorandum of Points and\n23   Authorities in Support of the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff\n24   and Approval of its Selection of Counsel (Doc. No. 22\u20111) (the \u201cLovingier Motion\u201d) at 2, 5;\n25   Doc. No. 22\u20115. Despite that actual notice, the Lovingier Trust did not file its motion until\n26   January 27, 2026. Doc. No. 22.          \u201cThe plain language\u201d of the PSLRA \u201cprecludes\n27   consideration\u201d of a financial loss first asserted in a pleading filed after the 60\u2011day window\n28   has closed, and the Court \u201cmay not\u201d extend a congressionally mandated time period through\n                                                    2\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 29          Filed 02/17/26   Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   equitable discretion. In re Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 818; Zhu, 682 F. Supp. 2d at 1053; see\n 2   also Argentine Republic v. Nat\u2019l Grid PLC, 637 F.3d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 2011).\n 3          Accordingly, the Lovingier Trust\u2019s motion cannot be considered at all in the lead\n 4   plaintiff analysis. The PSLRA \u201cdoes not have different filing deadlines based on the\n 5   financial interest of the movant,\u201d and it does not permit late\u2011filing movants to displace timely\n 6   applicants by asserting a higher dollar figure after the statutory window closes. Carson v.\n 7   Clarent Corp., 2001 WL 1782712, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2001); see also Stone v. Life\n 8   Partners Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 13237569, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2011). Because\n 9   Robinson is the only movant who both filed within the PSLRA\u2019s 60\u2011day period and\n10   otherwise satisfies Rule 23, he is the only candidate eligible for appointment as lead plaintiff.\n11          II.    The Lovingier Trust\u2019s Authorities Do Not Overcome the PSLRA\u2019s\n                   Mandate for Timely Filing\n12\n            The Lovingier Trust relies on decisions that either (i) relax local or procedural rules\n13\n     while preserving the PSLRA\u2019s 60\u2011day calendar deadline, or (ii) permit late or corrective\n14\n     filings only where a compliant motion was already on file\u2014either in the same case, a related\n15\n     action, or via a prior timely motion that was later withdrawn and then reinstated. None of\n16\n     those situations are mirrored here, where the Lovingier Trust filed nothing on January 26\n17\n     and seeks to displace an adequate, timely movant. See, e.g., Emerson v. Genocea\n18\n     Biosciences, Inc., 2018 WL 839382 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2018); Waterford Twp. Police & Fire\n19\n     Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc., 2017 WL 10667732 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017); GGCC, LLC v.\n20\n     Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc., 2018 WL 1388488 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018); Bender v. Vertex\n21\n     Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 588445 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024); Reitan v. China Mobile Games &\n22\n     Ent. Grp., Ltd., 68 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).\n23\n             Emerson and Waterford addressed motions filed on the correct 60th calendar day,\n24\n     with courts excusing marginally late compliance with local ECF cut\u2011offs, not a failure to\n25\n     file on the statutory deadline itself. See Emerson, 2018 WL 839382, at *3 (motion filed four\n26\n     minutes after local 6 p.m. ECF cut\u2011off but on the due date); Waterford, 2017 WL 10667732,\n27\n     at *4 (motion filed one hour after local\u2011rule deadline but on the calendar deadline). Those\n28\n\n                                                     3\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 29          Filed 02/17/26   Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   decisions leave the PSLRA\u2019s mandatory 60\u2011day period intact and treat only local\u2011rule timing\n 2   as flexible; they do not authorize consideration of a motion first filed on day 61.\n 3            GGCC, Bender, and Reitan all turned on the existence of an already\u2011timely motion.\n 4   In GGCC, a movant filed a PSLRA motion within 60 days in a related case, then re\u2011filed an\n 5   identical motion one day late in the main case; the court treated the latter as a good\u2011faith\n 6   correction in light of a notice having issued in the related action. GGCC, 2018 WL 1388488,\n 7   at *3\u20134. In Bender, the court held that a motion filed on day 60 in a Texas action, followed\n 8   by a notice and later motion in the first\u2011filed Alabama actions, satisfied the statute or was\n 9   excusable precisely because movants had timely moved somewhere and were not attempting\n10   to \u201center the field\u201d after reviewing others\u2019 motions. Bender, 2024 WL 588445, at *7\u201312.\n11   And in Reitan, the court excused untimeliness only where an institutional movant had\n12   already filed a timely motion, then withdrew it when another movant appeared larger, and\n13   later \u201cwithdrew the withdrawal\u201d after that larger movant exited, with no loss manipulation\n14   and no delay to the process. Reitan, 68 F. Supp. 3d at 397\u2013400. Here, by contrast, the\n15   Lovingier Trust never filed a motion within the 60\u2011day period in any court and never had a\n16   timely motion on file to correct or reinstate. These cases thus do not and cannot support\n17   relaxing the deadline in circumstances here \u2013 where an admittedly untimely movant seeks\n18   to displace an adequate, timely filer despite never having filed within the window in any\n19   forum.\n20            III.   Counsel\u2019s Explanatory Declaration Provides No Basis to Excuse\n                     Noncompliance\n21\n              At the time of its late filing, the Lovinger Trust did not seek leave of Court or\n22\n     otherwise explain its justification for the late filing with its initial motion. Rather, the Trust\n23\n     remained silent \u2013 apparently hoping other movants would not notice \u2013 and only addressing\n24\n     its tardiness in its opposition. This stratagem further demonstrates the Trust\u2019s inadequacy.\n25\n     In fact, the Trust could have filed its lead plaintiff motion well in advance of the January 26,\n26\n     2026 deadline. The Trust\u2019s PSLRA certification is dated January 16, 2026.\n27\n              The Trust\u2019s attempt to excuse its untimely motion rests entirely on local counsel\u2019s\n28\n\n                                                     4\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT     Document 29         Filed 02/17/26   Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   supplemental declaration, filed two weeks after the untimely motion. See Supplemental\n 2   Declaration of Don Bivens in Further Support of the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion for\n 3   Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel, Doc. No. 26-\n 4   1 (\u201cBivens Decl.\u201d). According to the declaration: (1) a paralegal at local counsel\u2019s firm, who\n 5   had not previously used declarant\u2019s CM/ECF and PACER accounts with multi\u2011factor\n 6   authentication, attempted to file \u201cshortly thereafter\u201d but could not complete the login; (2) for\n 7   undisclosed reasons the paralegal was unable to reach Mr. Bivens that evening to obtain\n 8   access to his personal Microsoft Authenticator application; and (3) the filing was not\n 9   completed until 7:27 a.m. on January 27, 2026\u2014approximately 7.5 hours after the statutory\n10   deadline. Bivens Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5-8.\n11           While PACER\u2019s MFA requirements are relatively new, the District of Arizona\n12   publicly announced the CM/ECF MFA requirement months earlier on its website, and all\n13   other movants, including Robinson, successfully filed their motions on January 26, 2026.2\n14   And at least one court confronting similar MFA problems in rules\u2011based contexts have\n15   refused to extend fixed deadlines, even where counsel attempted last\u2011minute work\u2011arounds.\n16   In In re Farnham, for example, counsel failed to file a Rule 9023/9024 motion within\n17   fourteen days because he \u201ccould not establish Multi\u2011Factor Authentication,\u201d mistakenly\n18   believed MFA was optional, and sent an email to court staff at 11:56 p.m. on the deadline\n19   asking that his motion be deemed filed. 2025 WL 2612637, at *1\u20132 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2025).\n20   The bankruptcy court held that neither Rule 9006 nor the court\u2019s equitable powers permitted\n21   relief from a missed rules\u2011based deadline on that basis and emphasized that MFA\n22   requirements had been noticed in advance. Id. at *2\u20133 & nn.4\u20135. If MFA enrollment does\n23   not justify extending non\u2011statutory deadlines under the Bankruptcy Rules, it provides even\n24\n\n25   2\n      See, information concerning MFA requirements posted to the D. Ariz. website. Available\n26   at: https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/news/update-multifactor-authentication-cmecfpacer-\n     now-required (last visited Feb. 16, 2026); see also, PACER\u2019s MFA announcement\n27   explaining that users will be enrolled in MFA beginning in August 2025. Available at:\n     https://pacer.uscourts.gov/announcements/2025/05/02/multifactor-authentication-coming-\n28\n     soon (last visited Feb. 16, 2026).\n                                                    5\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 29      Filed 02/17/26     Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   less persuasive grounds to override an express, congressionally mandated 60\u2011day filing\n 2   period in the PSLRA.\n 3          In effect, the Lovingier Trust asks this Court to ignore a federal statute on facts far\n 4   weaker than those in cases it invokes. In Montesano v. Eros International PLC, the court\n 5   accepted a one\u2011day late motion only after counsel in that case attested (contemporaneously\n 6   to the untimely filing) that he had prepared and transmitted the papers before the deadline,\n 7   that they were blocked by a spam filter beyond his control, and that he \u201cwas actively\n 8   monitoring email and responding to work matters after 11:00 pm yesterday.\u201d Declaration of\n 9   Donald A. Ecklund \u00b6 4, Montesano v. Eros Int\u2019l PLC, No. 2:19\u2011cv\u201114125 (D.N.J. Aug. 21,\n10   2019), Doc. No. 9; Montesano, 2020 WL 1873015, at *7\u20139. Here, by contrast, there was\n11   clear advance notice of both the PSLRA\u2019s 60\u2011day deadline and PACER\u2019s MFA enrollment\n12   requirements, yet the attorney ultimately responsible for the filing did not ensure that the\n13   motion was submitted by midnight and, as the declaration concedes, \u201ca paralegal attempted\n14   but was unable to reach\u201d him when trying to complete the filing. Bivens Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20137.\n15          IV.    Robinson Satisfies Rule 23(a)\n16          The Lovingier Trust also speculates as to Robinson\u2019s typicality and adequacy,\n17   making two points: (1) Robinson did not submit a separate biographical declaration in\n18   addition to the certification required by the PSLRA, and (2) Robinson a three\u2011firm counsel\n19   structure \u2013 two firms as co-lead counsel and one firm as liaison counsel. Neither issue creates\n20   a \u201cunique defense\u201d or rebuts the PSLRA presumption.\n21          Unlike the Lovingier Trust, Robinson has complied with every requirement set by the\n22   PSLRA. The statute requires a sworn certification and that the presumptive movant\n23   \u201cotherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23\u201d (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u\u20114(a)(2)(A),\n24   (a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc)), not any particular format of personal declaration, and Lovingier cites\n25   no authority suggesting that the absence of an additional biographical affidavit, standing\n26   alone, has ever rendered an otherwise timely, largest\u2011loss movant inadequate. \u201cAlthough\n27   some courts like those cited in [competing movant\u2019s response] prefer to have more\n28   biographical information about a lead plaintiff candidate, In Re Cavanaugh makes clear that\n                                                    6\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 29       Filed 02/17/26    Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   the analysis must be tightly focused on financial interest and Rule 23 requirements.\u201d\n 2   Borteanu v. Nikola Corp., 507 F. Supp. 3d 1128, 1138 (D. Ariz. 2020), mandamus granted,\n 3   order vacated sub nom. In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021), and vacated in part, 562\n 4   F. Supp. 3d 174 (D. Ariz. 2021); citing Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732 (\u201c[A] straightforward\n 5   application of the statutory scheme ... provides no occasion for comparing plaintiffs with\n 6   each other on any basis other than their financial stake in the case.\u201d)\n 7          Consistent with that framework, courts routinely appoint as lead plaintiff a largest-\n 8   loss movant who has filed the required PSLRA certification and supplied basic information\n 9   sufficient to demonstrate aligned claims, an adequate financial interest, and a willingness to\n10   prosecute the action, without demanding a standalone CV. See, e.g., Patel v. Reata Pharm.,\n11   Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 559, 569\u201371 (E.D. Tex. 2021) (finding adequacy where the movant\u2019s\n12   motion and certification stated residence, years of investing experience, education, and\n13   professional background); Kasilingam v. Tilray, Inc., 2020 WL 4530357, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.\n14   Aug. 6, 2020) (declining to \u201cpeer into\u201d additional personal details where adequacy was\n15   otherwise established). Here, as in Patel, Robinson has provided precisely the kind of\n16   background information that courts deem sufficient to support a prima facie showing of\n17   typicality and adequacy. Robinson\u2019s moving papers state where he lives, his investing\n18   experience, and \u201cenumerates the industr[y] in which he works.\u201d Patel, 549 F.Supp 3d, at\n19   571; see, Robinson Motion, at 7 (\u201cMovant lives in Rochester, New York and has been\n20   investing for 15 years. Movant works in the real estate industry\u201d); Doc. No. 18.\n21          By contrast, the movants in Boeing, Camp, and Perez were faulted for providing\n22   virtually no personal information beyond a PSLRA certification and, at most, a place of\n23   residence, leaving the courts with \u201cvirtually no basis to assess their adequacy to lead and\n24   direct litigation.\u201d In re Boeing Co. Aircraft Sec. Litig., No. 19 CV 2394, 2019 WL 6052399,\n25   at *5 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019); Camp v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 18\u2011CV\u20111208, 2019 WL\n26   277360, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019); Perez v. HEXO Corp., No. 19 CIV 10965, 2020 WL\n27   905753, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020). In Camp, the court declined to appoint the\n28   largest\u2011loss movant because he failed to include \u201cany basic details about himself, including\n                                                    7\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT          Document 29       Filed 02/17/26      Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   where he lives or who he is specifically in his motion,\u201d and in Perez the court similarly\n 2   refused to appoint a movant who initially \u201cdid not provide any information about himself,\n 3   e.g., investment history, educational background, etc.\u201d Camp, 2019 WL 277360, at *3;\n 4   Perez, 2020 WL 905753, at *3. Robinson\u2019s submission identifies his residence, length of\n 5   investing experience, and industry of employment, together with his certification, loss\n 6   charts, and explanation of why his claims are typical and why he wishes to represent the\n 7   class\u2014places him squarely on the Patel/Kasilingam side of the line, not in the\n 8   Boeing/Camp/Perez category of movants who offered \u201cnone\u201d of the basic information\n 9   necessary for the Court to assess adequacy. See Kasilingam, 2020 WL 4530357, at *2\u20133.\n10          The Lovingier Trust\u2019s criticism of Robinson\u2019s proposed lead counsel similarly fails\n11   to displace him. The PSLRA \u201cclearly leaves the choice of class counsel in the hands of the\n12   lead plaintiff,\u201d subject only to the Court\u2019s review for overall adequacy, not a free\u2011floating\n13   preference among reasonable structures. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 734 (9th Cir.\n14   2002). As the Ninth Circuit has emphasized, \u201ca plaintiff\u2019s choice of counsel is relevant only\n15   to the extent that decision \u2018is so irrational, or so tainted by self\u2011dealing or conflict of interest,\n16   as to cast genuine and serious doubt on that plaintiff\u2019s willingness or ability to perform the\n17   functions of lead plaintiff,\u2019 and the question is \u2018whether the choices made by the movant\n18   with the largest losses are so deficient as to demonstrate that it will not fairly and adequately\n19   represent the interests of the class.\u2019\u201d In re Mersho, 6 F.4th, at 900\u201301 (9th Cir. 2021). This\n20   District does not hesitate to appoint two firms as co-lead counsel. See, Borteanu v. Nikola\n21   Corp., No. 20-cv-01797-PHX-SPL, Doc. No. 81, at 17 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2021) (\u201cwhile the\n22   competing movants raise issue with the fact that Group II lists four law firms in its pleadings,\n23   this Court is satisfied with Group II\u2019s selection of only two of them to serve as co-lead\n24   counsel in this case\u201d).\n25          Against this standard, the Lovingier Trust\u2019s argument does not move the needle.\n26   Robinson has proposed two experienced national securities firms as co\u2011lead counsel and a\n27   respected Phoenix firm as liaison; his motion explains their roles and attaches firm r\u00e9sum\u00e9s.\n28   Doc. Nos. 18\u20116, 18\u20117, 18\u20118. A multi-firm configuration is common in complex securities\n                                                       8\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT       Document 29       Filed 02/17/26    Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n 1   class action cases like this one, which the Lovingier Trust\u2019s proposed counsel, Kahn Swick\n 2   & Foti, LLC (\u201cKSF\u201d), knows well.3\n 3          The Lovingier Trust identifies no conflict of interest, self\u2011dealing, nor any prejudice\n 4   whatsoever stemming from Robinson\u2019s choice of counsel. Its critique is, at bottom, a\n 5   preference for fewer firms, even as the Lovingier Trust itself asks the Court to approve an\n 6   out\u2011of\u2011state lead firm that must rely on separate Arizona local counsel which has already\n 7   failed to oversee the very first filing deadline in this action. Lovingier Opp. at 1\u20132; Bivens\n 8   Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20137. Under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, that sort of speculation without\n 9   evidence is not the kind of \u201cirrational\u201d or conflicted choice that casts \u201cgenuine and serious\n10   doubt\u201d on a lead plaintiff\u2019s adequacy. It falls well short of even the \u201cmisgivings\u201d that\n11   Mersho held cannot justify displacing the PSLRA\u2019s presumption of the most adequate\n12   plaintiff. Mersho, 6 F.4th at 900\u201301; Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 734.\n13          CONCLUSION\n14          For the foregoing reasons, Peter Robinson respectfully requests that the Court enter\n15   an Order: (i) appointing Mr. Robinson as Lead Plaintiff; and (ii) approving Mr. Robinson\u2019s\n16   selection of The Rosen Law Firm and The Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel and Martin\n17   & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as Liaison Counsel for the Class.\n18\n\n19   Dated: February 17, 2026                   Respectfully submitted,\n20\n\n21                                                 By: s/Jennifer Kroll\n                                                   MARTIN & BONNETT P.L.L.C.\n22                                                 Susan Martin (AZ#014226)\n23                                                 Jennifer Kroll (AZ#019859)\n                                                   4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185\n24                                                 Phoenix, Arizona 85018\n                                                   Telephone: (602) 240-6900\n25\n\n26   3\n       See, e.g., In re Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation (Aimmune Merger), No.\n27   3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Doc. No. 42 (KSF stipulating to itself being appointed in\n     a co-lead counsel structure); In re Zeta Global Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation,\n28\n     No. 1:24-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y.), Doc. No. 71 (KSF appointed as co-lead counsel).\n                                                   9\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 29      Filed 02/17/26   Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n 1                                               Fax: (602) 240-2345\n                                                 Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com\n 2\n                                                    jkroll@martinbonnett.com\n 3\n                                                 [Proposed] Liaison Counsel for Movant and\n 4                                               the Class\n 5\n                                                 THE SCHALL LAW FIRM\n 6                                               Andrew J. Brown (pro hac vice)\n                                                 Adam L. Rosen (pro hac vice)\n 7                                               2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460\n 8                                               Los Angeles, CA 90067\n                                                 Phone: (310) 301-3335\n 9                                               andrew@schallfirm.com\n                                                 adam@schallfirm.com\n10\n\n11                                               THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n                                                 Philip Kim (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n12                                               Laurence M. Rosen\n13                                               (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n                                                 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n14                                               New York, NY 10016\n                                                 Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n15\n                                                 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n16                                                      lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n17                                              Counsel for Movant and the Class\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                 10\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:32.220022-07:00","document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025030449302","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-17T14:05:22.663260-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.316759-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-17","time_filed":"14:24:31","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":112,"description":"REPLY to Response to Motion re: 18 MOTION to Appoint Peter Robinson as Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel filed by Peter Robinson. (Kroll, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/454027523/","id":454027523,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468934062/","id":468934062,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-02-17T06:03:43.783456-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-17T06:03:43.797633-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-17T06:03:43.763601-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-17T06:03:43.763621-08:00","date_filed":"2026-02-17","time_filed":"06:48:06","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453889051/","id":453889051,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468789863/","id":468789863,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-02-13T15:41:30.196728-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-13T15:41:30.202948-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-13T15:41:30.184121-08:00","date_modified":"2026-02-13T15:41:30.184134-08:00","date_filed":"2026-02-13","time_filed":"16:13:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453287615/","id":453287615,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468175646/","id":468175646,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/28/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-02-09T18:09:32.680430-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:35:34.881602-07:00","sha1":"f058e9849876f974ca8050230e762d3a097a11ed","page_count":16,"file_size":784627,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.28.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.28.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 28      Filed 02/09/26   Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   MARTIN & BONNETT P.L.L.C.\n     Susan Martin (AZ#014226)\n 2\n     Jennifer Kroll (AZ#019859)\n 3   4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185\n     Phoenix, Arizona 85018\n 4   Telephone: (602) 240-6900\n 5   Fax: (602) 240-2345\n     Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com\n 6          jkroll@martinbonnett.com\n 7\n     [Proposed] Liaison Counsel for Movant and the Class\n 8\n     [Additional counsel on signature page.]\n 9\n\n10\n                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n11\n                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n12\n     Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dtd         Case No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n13   02/18/2019, Individually and on behalf of\n14   all others similarly situated,               CLASS ACTION\n15      Plaintiff,\n16                                                MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S\n17                                                MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND\n            vs.                                   AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO\n18                                                COMPETING LEAD PLAINTIFF\n                                                  MOTIONS\n19\n     Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.; Jack L.\n20   Sinclair; Curtis Valentine,\n21      Defendants.\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                Document 28               Filed 02/09/26          Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n 1                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2\n     I.     INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1\n 3\n     II.    ROBINSON IS THE PRESUMPTIVELY MOST ADEQUATE PLAINTIFF ......... 2\n 4\n            A.       Robinson Filed a Timely Motion .................................................................... 2\n 5\n            B.       Robinson Has The Largest Financial Interest Of All Proper Movants ........... 4\n 6\n\n 7          C.       The Lovingier Trust\u2019s Noncompliance Bars Consideration ........................... 5\n\n 8          D.       Untimely Motions May Be Considered Only in Narrow Circumstances\n                     Not Present Here.............................................................................................. 6\n 9\n            E.       Robinson Is Typical And Adequate Under Rule 23(a) ................................... 8\n10\n\n11   III.   THE PRESUMPTION THAT ROBINSON IS THE MOST ADEQUATE\n            PLAINTIFF CANNOT BEEN REBUTTED ............................................................. 9\n12\n     IV.    ROBINSON\u2019S CHOICE OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED ................... 10\n13\n     V.     CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 11\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                                  i\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                  Document 28                Filed 02/09/26        Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n 1                                             TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2\n\n 3\n     CASES\n\n 4   Argentine Republic v. Nat\u2019l Grid PLC,\n       637 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 2\n 5\n\n 6\n     Carson v. Clarent Corp.,\n       No. 01\u2011cv-03361 CRB, 2001 WL 1782712 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2001) ........................ 5, 6\n 7\n     Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.,\n 8     1:24-CV-00282-AKB-CWD, 2024 WL 4766254 (D. Idaho Nov. 12, 2024) .................... 3\n 9\n     Emerson v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc.,\n10    No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, 2018 WL 839382 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2018) ................................ 7\n11\n     GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc.,\n12    No. 17-cv-06779, 2018 WL 1388488 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ..................................... 7\n13   In re Cavanaugh,\n14     306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 4, 9, 10\n\n15   In re: David James Farnham,\n       No. 24-bk-30325, 2025 WL 2612637 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2025) ........................... 8\n16\n\n17   In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n       206 F.R.D. 427 (S.D. Tex. 2002) ................................................................................... 2, 5\n18\n\n19   In re Initial Pub. Offering Secs. Litig.,\n       214 F.R.D. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) .................................................................................... 7-8\n20\n     In re Mersho,\n21\n       6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 9\n22\n     In re MicroStrategy Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n23     110 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Va. 2000) ................................................................................ 7\n24\n     In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n25     67 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ohio 1999) ............................................................................ 1, 5\n26\n     In re Tezos Sec. Litig.,\n27     No. 17-cv-06779, 2019 WL 2183448 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) ........................................ 3\n\n28\n\n                                                                    ii\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                  Document 28                Filed 02/09/26        Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   Lomingkit v. Apollo Edu. Grp. Inc.,\n       No. 16-cv-00689, 2016 WL 3345514 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2016) ........................................ 8\n 2\n\n 3   Montesano v. Eros Int\u2019l PLC,\n      No. 2:19-cv-14125-ES-JSA, 2020 WL 1873015 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) ......................... 6\n 4\n\n 5   Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC,\n       No. 10-cv-01139, 2013 WL 1287416 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) ................................... 10\n 6\n     Skwortz v. Crayfish Co.,\n 7\n       No. 00-CV-6766, 2001 WL 1160745 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2001) ..................................... 8\n 8\n     Stone v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.,\n 9     No. DR-11-CV-16-AM, 2011 WL 13237569 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2011) ................... 6, 8\n10\n     Tenneson v. Nikola Corp.,\n11     No. 23-cv-02131, 2024 WL 905244 (D. Ariz. Feb 29, 2024) ........................................... 4\n12\n     Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc.,\n13    No. 17-cv-04732 VAP (KSX), 2017 WL 10667732 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) .............. 7\n\n14   Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc.,\n15\n      726 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 10\n\n16   Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc.,\n       682 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ......................................................................... 1, 6\n17\n\n18\n     STATUTES\n\n19   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A).................................................................................................... 3\n\n20   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i) ................................................................................................ 3\n21\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) .............................................................................................. 3\n22\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) ...................................................................................... 2, 8\n23\n\n24   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa) ................................................................................... 2\n\n25   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb) ................................................................................... 2\n26\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) ................................................................................... 2\n27\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II) ........................................................................................ 9\n28\n\n                                                                     i\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                     Document 28                Filed 02/09/26          Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v) ............................................................................................. 10\n 2\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) ................................................................................... 8\n 3\n     RULES\n 4\n     Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) ................................................................................................................ 2\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                                        i\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28          Filed 02/09/26   Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n 1\n            Lead Plaintiff Movant Peter Robinson (hereinafter \u201cRobinson\u201d) submits this\n 2\n     memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to competing motions for appointment\n 3\n     of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. (Doc. Nos. 16, 18, 20, 22).\n 4\n            I.     INTRODUCTION\n 5\n            Before the Court are three timely filed lead plaintiff motions: Robinson (Doc. No.\n 6\n     18), The Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A DTD 02/18/2019 (\u201cSingh Trust,\u201d Doc. No. 16),\n 7\n     and Carolle Poudrier and Leslie Rotness (\u201cPoudrier & Rotness,\u201d Doc. No. 20). Poudrier &\n 8\n     Rotness filed a non-opposition acknowledging that \u201cit appears that movant Peter Robinson\n 9\n     is the \u2018most adequate plaintiff\u2019 within the meaning of the PSLRA.\u201d Notice of Non\n10\n     Opposition of Leslie Rotness and Carolle Poudrier to Competing Motions for Appointment\n11\n     as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, Doc. No. 27 at 1. Similarly, the\n12\n     Singh Trust has withdrawn its motion. Notice of Withdrawal of Singh Family Revocable\n13\n     Trust U/A DTD 2/18/2019\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of\n14\n     Selection of Counsel, Doc. No. 23. Thus, Robinson\u2019s motion is unopposed by movants\n15\n     properly before the Court.\n16\n            While the Lovingier Family Trust (\u201cLovingier Trust\u201d or \u201cTrust\u201d) claims a larger loss\n17\n     than Robinson ($259,313.88 vs. $188,976.61), its motion is late because it was filed on\n18\n     January 27, 2026. Therefore, the Trust is not properly before this Court and fails to meet\n19\n     the requirements of the PSLRA.          The January 26, 2026 deadline was a \u201cthreshold\n20\n     requirement to serve as lead plaintiff,\u201d and the Lovingier Trust\u2019s motion does not satisfy this\n21\n     mandatory threshold requirement. Zhu, 682 F. Supp. 2d at 1053. The Lovingier Trust does\n22\n     not contend otherwise. See Doc. No. 22-1 (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in\n23\n     Support of the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval\n24\n     of its Selection of Lead Counsel, hereinafter the \u201cLovingier Motion\u201d), at 6 (\u201c. . . the deadline\n25\n     for submission of applications to be appointed lead Plaintiff is January 26, 2026.\u201d).\n26\n            Putting aside the fact that the Trust has not even sought relief for its late filing, Courts\n27\n     strictly construe the PSLRA lead plaintiff deadline. In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., 67 F.\n28\n\n                                                     1\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT     Document 28        Filed 02/09/26   Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   Supp. 2d 803, 818 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (\u201cThe plain language of the statutes precludes\n 2   consideration of a financial loss asserted for the first time in a complaint, or any other\n 3   pleading, for that matter, filed after the sixty (60) day window has closed.\u201d). (emphasis in\n 4   original).1 The 60-day time limit to move for appointment as lead plaintiff cannot be\n 5   extended. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) grants courts discretion to extend\n 6   non-statutory deadlines, the district court may not extend congressionally mandated time\n 7   periods. Argentine Republic v. Nat\u2019l Grid PLC, 637 F.3d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 2011)\n 8   (\u201cNational Grid argues that the ditrcit court could not, as a matter of law, have granted the\n 9   motion because Rule 6(b) may not be used to extend periods of time dictated by statute. We\n10   agree.\u201d). On this point the PSLRA is \u201cunequivocal and imposes precise time requirements.\u201d\n11   In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig., 206 F.R.D. 427, 439.\n12           Robinson, by contrast, filed a timely motion (Doc. No. 18), has the largest financial\n13   interest among eligible movants, and otherwise satisfies Rule 23. Accordingly, Robinson\n14   warrants appointment as he is the presumptive \u201cmost adequate plaintiff,\u201d and the Lovingier\n15   Trust\u2019s untimely motion should be denied.\n16           II.   ROBINSON         IS   THE     PRESUMPTIVELY            MOST       ADEQUATE\n                   PLAINTIFF\n17\n             Robinson satisfies all three requirements to be the presumptively most adequate\n18\n     plaintiff. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). He filed a timely motion for appointment.\n19\n     See Doc. No. 18; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa). Robinson has the largest financial\n20\n     interest in the relief sought by the class among eligible movants. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-\n21\n     4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb), and he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, as demonstrated in his\n22\n     memorandum of points and authorities and PSLRA certification in support of his lead\n23\n     plaintiff motion. Doc. Nos. 18, 18-4; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc).\n24\n                   A.     Robinson Filed a Timely Motion\n25\n             In compliance with the PSLRA, on November 26, 2025, counsel for the Singh Trust\n26\n\n27\n     1\n       All emphasis is added, and all internal quotations and citations are omitted, unless\n28\n     otherwise stated.\n                                                   2\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f      Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28         Filed 02/09/26   Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   published early notice advising members of the proposed class of their right \u201cto move this\n 2   Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff no later than January 26, 2026.\u201d See Lovingier Trust Motion\n 3   (Doc. No. 22-1), at 2. Every movant seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, including the\n 4   Lovingier Trust, attached the early notice to their declarations supporting appointment. See\n 5   Exhibits to Declarations of Movants\u2019 Counsel, Doc. Nos. 17-3 (the Singh Trust), 18-3\n 6   (Robinson), 21-2 (Poudrier & Rotness), 22-5 (the Lovingier Trust). The January 26 deadline\n 7   was unequivocal and understood by each movant and their counsel.\n 8          Timely filing is the \u201cfirst\u201d determination made by courts, and only those movants\n 9   who satisfy the PSLRA\u2019s procedural requirements advance to later stages of consideration.\n10   See Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., 1:24-CV-\n11   00282-AKB-CWD, 2024 WL 4766254, at *4 (D. Idaho Nov. 12, 2024) (\u201cFirst, the court\n12   must determine whether the procedural requirements are satisfied. The procedural\n13   requirements demand that a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff be filed within 60 days\n14   of the published notice of the class action.\u201d) (citing 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)). The\n15   sequencing is reflected in the statute\u2019s structure. Section 78-u4(a)(3)(A) requires publication\n16   of notice and establishes the 60-day deadline. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Only after that\n17   window closes does subsection (B) direct the court to select the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d\n18   15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). Congress chose to condition eligibility for the court\u2019s\n19   analysis on compliance with the notice-and-filing requirements. Noncompliance at step one\n20   removes a movant from consideration at steps two and three, regardless of financial interest\n21   or adequacy. See In re Tezos Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-06779, 2019 WL 2183448 (N.D. Cal.\n22   Apr. 8, 2019), at *3 (to follow the PSLRA, courts \u201cconsider timely applicants before moving\n23   beyond the noticed pool\u201d).\n24          The record confirms that all movants, including the Lovingier Trust, understood this\n25   structure. Each attached the November 26, 2025 early notice, which expressly identified\n26   January 26, 2026 as the deadline. Doc. Nos. 17-3 (Singh Trust), 18-3 (Robinson), 21-1\n27   (Poudrier & Rotness), 22-5 (Lovingier Trust). Each movant thus had actual notice, not only\n28   of the deadline itself, but of the fact that competing motions would be filed and evaluated\n                                                    3\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f         Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT     Document 28          Filed 02/09/26   Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   on that date. The Lovingier Trust\u2019s decision to file one day late, after observing the field of\n 2   competing applicants and their claimed losses, cannot be excused on grounds of surprise or\n 3   lack of notice. The PSLRA does not permit class members to stand on the sidelines during\n 4   the statutory window and then seek to displace timely movants after the fact.\n 5           The Lovingier Trust was undeniably aware of this deadline and yet failed to meet it,\n 6   offering no excuse whatsoever. See Lovingier Trust Motion (Doc. No. 22-1), at 2 (published\n 7   notice advised \u201cmembers of the proposed Class of their right to move the Court to serve as\n 8   Lead Plaintiff no later than January 26, 2026.\u201d). Indeed, the certification of service by the\n 9   Lovingier Trust\u2019s counsel attests under penalty of perjury that the Notice of Motion and\n10   Motion was filed on January 26, 2026. Doc. No. 22 at 3. But it was not filed until the next\n11   day, January 27, 2026. It is untimely and cannot be considered. 2\n12               B.   Robinson Has The Largest Financial Interest Of All Proper Movants\n13           Since the PSLRA does not mandate any particular method for determining which\n14   movant has the \u201clargest financial interest\u201d in the relief sought by the class, district courts are\n15   free to choose any methodology that is \u201cboth rational and consistently applied.\u201d In re\n16   Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 n.4. In light of this, courts tend to apply the following four\n17   factors in making the financial interest determination (the \u201cLax-Olsten factors\u201d): (1) the\n18   number of shares purchased, (2) the number of net shares purchased; (3) the total net funds\n19   expended by the plaintiffs during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered\n20   by the plaintiffs. See Tenneson v. Nikola Corp., No. 23-cv-02131, 2024 WL 905244, at *5\n21   (D. Ariz. Feb 29, 2024). \u201cThe fourth factor, approximate losses suffered, is often provided\n22   the greatest weight.\u201d Id.\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n     2\n26     According to the Court\u2019s ECF webpage, the only system maintenance in the month of\n     January 2026 occurred on Saturday, January 17, 2026. That webpage is available here:\n27   https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl (last visited Feb. 9, 2026). And all three\n     other movants had no problem timely filing their motions on January 26. Lovingier Trust\n28\n     can have no excuse.\n                                                     4\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 28      Filed 02/09/26     Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2          Among the eligible (i.e. timely) movants, Robinson has suffered the largest loss,\n 3   spending $428,940 to purchase his substantial position of 3,000 shares: 3\n 4\n\n 5   Movant                  Shares Purchased        Net Expenditure        LIFO Loss\n     Lovingier Trust         6,300                   $763,237               $259,313.88\n 6\n\n 7   Peter Robinson           3,000                     $428,940             $188,976.61\n\n 8   Poudrier & Rotness       10,915                    $462,162             $158,889\n\n 9   Singh Trust              855                       $131,779             $63,278.22\n\n10\n\n11          Robinson\u2019s losses of $188,976.61 place him first among eligible movants. The\n\n12   Lovingier Trust\u2019s claimed loss of $259,313.88, while nominally larger, is legally irrelevant\n\n13   because the Lovingier Trust is not an eligible movant under the statute. The PSLRA does\n\n14   not allow late-filing movants to displace timely applicants simply by asserting larger losses.\n\n15   See Carson v. Clarent Corp., No. 01\u2011cv-03361 CRB, 2001 WL 1782712, at *2 (N.D. Cal.\n\n16   Dec. 14, 2001) (\u201cThe PSLRA does not have different filing deadlines based on the financial\n\n17   interest of the movant\u201d). Reading the statute otherwise would invite strategic delay and\n\n18   gamesmanship, allowing latecomers to wait for timely filings, then tailor their motions and\n\n19   loss calculations to leapfrog compliant applicants.\n\n20                 C.     The Lovingier Trust\u2019s Noncompliance Bars Consideration\n\n21          The Lovingier Trust correctly identified the PSLRA\u2019s 60\u2011day deadline, attached the\n\n22   early notice stating that class members had the \u201cright to move the Court to serve as Lead\n\n23   Plaintiff no later than January 26, 2026,\u201d stated in its Motion that the deadline for submission\n\n24   was January 26, and nonetheless filed its motion on January 27, 2026. See Doc. Nos. 22 at\n\n25   6; 22\u20111 at 2. Courts applying the PSLRA have repeatedly held that such noncompliance with\n\n26   the 60\u2011day window is dispositive and forecloses consideration of an otherwise larger claimed\n\n27\n     3\n      See Movants\u2019 Loss Charts, Doc. Nos. 17-1 (Singh Trust), 18-5 (Robinson), 21-1 (Poudrier\n28\n     & Rotness), 22-4 (Lovingier Trust).\n                                                    5\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28      Filed 02/09/26     Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   loss. See, e.g., In re Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 818 (\u201c[t]he plain language of the statutes\n 2   precludes consideration of a financial loss asserted for the first time in a complaint, or any\n 3   other pleading, for that matter, filed after the sixty (60) day window has closed\u201d) (emphasis\n 4   in original); In re Enron, 206 F.R.D. at 439 (describing the PSLRA as \u201cunequivocal\u201d and\n 5   imposing \u201cprecise time requirements\u201d); Zhu, 682 F. Supp. 2d at 1053 (treating filing by the\n 6   60\u2011day deadline as \u201cthe threshold requirement to serve as lead plaintiff\u201d).\n 7          The Lovingier Trust\u2019s claimed loss is therefore irrelevant to the PSLRA\u2019s timing rule.\n 8   Courts have expressly rejected the notion that a larger financial interest can override\n 9   noncompliance with the 60\u2011day deadline. See, e.g., Carson, 2001 WL 1782712, at *2\n10   (declining to appoint untimely movant with largest loss because \u201c[t]he PSLRA does not have\n11   different filing deadlines based on the financial interest of the movant\u201d); Stone v. Life\n12   Partners Holdings, Inc., No. DR-11-CV-16-AM, 2011 WL 13237569, at *4 (W.D. Tex.\n13   Aug. 12, 2011) (considering an untimely motion over an acceptable timely applicant would\n14   \u201cblatantly ignore\u201d the sixty\u2011day deadline and the statute\u2019s plain language).\n15                 D.     Untimely Motions May Be Considered Only in Narrow\n                          Circumstances Not Present Here\n16\n            Courts have, on rare occasion, considered untimely lead plaintiff motions, but only\n17\n     where the record contains specific facts that justify the delay and demonstrate that similar\n18\n     issues will not recur. In such cases, counsel promptly explained the reason for lateness, often\n19\n     technical or ministerial, and described remedial steps to ensure future compliance. See, e.g.,\n20\n     Montesano v. Eros Int\u2019l PLC, No. 2:19-cv-14125-ES-JSA, 2020 WL 1873015 (D.N.J. Apr.\n21\n     14, 2020) (accepting late filing after counsel immediately informed the court that spam\n22\n     filters had blocked moving papers and confirmed \u201cadjustments\u201d had been made). Here, by\n23\n     contrast, the Lovingier Trust\u2019s PSLRA Certification (Doc. No. 22-3) was executed on\n24\n     January 16\u2014ten days before the statutory deadline\u2014confirming that the Lovingier Trust\n25\n     was prepared to seek appointment within the period prescribed by the PSLRA, yet still did\n26\n     not file a timely motion. There is no affidavit, declaration, or letter from the Lovingier\n27\n     Trust\u2019s counsel explaining why its motion was filed late or what steps have been taken to\n28\n\n                                                    6\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28       Filed 02/09/26     Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   prevent a repeat of that mistake. The silence in the record underscores that there is no factual\n 2   basis for treating this case as one of the rare exceptions to PSLRA compliance.\n 3          Robinson recognizes that there are a small number of decisions relaxing the deadline\n 4   for untimely motions that were still filed on the correct calendar day, with the court\n 5   distinguishing between the PSLRA\u2019s statutory 60\u2011day period and local electronic filing\n 6   cut\u2011offs. See, e.g., Emerson v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, 2018 WL\n 7   839382, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2018) (treating the 6 p.m. ECF deadline as non\u2011sacrosanct\n 8   where the motion was filed four minutes late on the correct due date); Waterford Twp. Police\n 9   & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 17-cv-04732 VAP (KSX), 2017 WL 10667732, at *4\n10   (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (accepting a motion filed one hour after a local\u2011rule deadline but\n11   on the correct calendar day); GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc., No. 17-cv-06779,\n12   2018 WL 1388488 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (treating a one\u2011day delay as compliant where\n13   an identical motion was timely filed in a related case). The contrast between the situations\n14   presented in Emerson, Waterford, and GGCC and the facts here is stark. In each of those\n15   cases, the movant\u2019s counsel filed something on the 60th calendar day: either the motion\n16   itself (Emerson, Waterford) or an identical motion in a related proceeding (GGCC). The\n17   courts exercised discretion to overlook technical violations of local filing rules (4 minutes\n18   late, one hour late) or consolidated case-numbering issues, while holding firm to the\n19   statutory 60-day requirement. Here, the Lovingier Trust did not file on January 26 at any\n20   time, early, late, or otherwise. Its January 27 filing missed the calendar day entirely and thus\n21   cannot be salvaged by analogizing to these holdings.\n22          Similarly, some courts recognize a prerogative to identify and appoint a tardy lead\n23   plaintiff in the unusual circumstance where there is no timely, adequate applicant available.\n24   If the court has no other option, it may turn to untimely filers to fulfill the obligations of a\n25   lead plaintiff to ensure that the class\u2019s claims are represented. See, e.g., In re MicroStrategy\n26   Inc. Sec. Litig., 110 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Va. 2000) (lead plaintiff withdrew after filing\n27   consolidated amended complaint, thereby requiring court to restart lead plaintiff selection\n28   process long after expiration of sixty-day deadline); In re Initial Pub. Offering Secs. Litig.,\n                                                    7\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28       Filed 02/09/26     Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   214 F.R.D. 117, 120, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (no applicant filed for lead plaintiff status \u201cwithin\n 2   60 days of the initial notice of pendency,\u201d so tardy movant appointed); Skwortz v. Crayfish\n 3   Co., No. 00-CV-6766, 2001 WL 1160745, at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2001) (naming\n 4   belated movant as lead plaintiff where no class member timely applied). These cases are\n 5   distinguishable on this very point \u2013 the presence of a timely, adequate movant matters. As\n 6   explained above, Robinson is a PSLRA-compliant, adequate lead plaintiff, and this Court\n 7   need not (and Lovingier Trust offers no basis for doing so) excuse the Lovingier Trust\u2019s\n 8   untimeliness in the interest of continuing this action. See Stone, 2011 WL 13237569, at *4\n 9   (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2011) (\u201c[I]n not one of the cases adopting a pliable time limit does a\n10   court actually choose a lead plaintiff candidate who applied after the sixty-day deadline over\n11   an acceptable lead plaintiff applicant who submitted his motion in a timely manner.\u201d).4\n12          These cases thus provide Lovingier Trust no cover for its late filing, and no prejudice\n13   will result to the class from barring the Lovingier Trust Motion from further consideration.\n14   Robinson is a PSLRA-compliant class member with a significant loss that has plainly\n15   demonstrated he is qualified to serve as lead plaintiff. Therefore, in accordance with the clear\n16   weight of authority and unequivocal terms of the PSLRA, the Court should bar the Lovingier\n17   Motion from further consideration and proceed to select a lead plaintiff from among\n18   remaining applicants who filed timely motions. Since the Singh Trust and Poudrier &\n19   Rotness have withdrawn their motions, Robinson should be appointed lead plaintiff.\n20                 E.     Robinson Is Typical And Adequate Under Rule 23(a)\n21          For purposes of establishing the PSLRA\u2019s \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d presumption,\n22   only the \u201ctypicality and adequacy\u201d requirements of Rule 23(a) are relevant. Lomingkit v.\n23   Apollo Edu. Grp. Inc., No. 16-cv-00689, 2016 WL 3345514, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2016)\n24\n\n25   4\n      See also, In re: David James Farnham, No. 24-bk-30325, 2025 WL 2612637, at *2 (Bankr.\n26   M.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2025) (refusing to grant equitable relief from a rule-based filing deadline\n     due to ECF filing Multi-Factor Authentication requirement); information concerning MFA\n27   has been posted on the Court\u2019s website since November 25, 2025. The Court\u2019s notice is\n     available at: https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/news/update-multifactor-authentication-cmecf-\n28\n     pacer-now-required (last visited Feb. 9, 2026).\n                                                    8\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT          Document 28    Filed 02/09/26    Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   (citing Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730). Robinson satisfies these requirements of Rule 23, as\n 2   demonstrated in his memorandum of law in support of his lead plaintiff motion, his PSLRA\n 3   Certification, and for the reasons state herein. See Doc. No. 18, at 6; Doc. No. 18-4; U.S.C.\n 4   \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc).\n 5          III.   THE PRESUMPTION THAT ROBINSON IS THE MOST ADEQUATE\n                   PLAINTIFF CANNOT BEEN REBUTTED\n 6\n            Once a movant establishes that it filed a timely motion, has the largest financial\n 7\n     interest among eligible movants, and satisfies the preliminary Rule 23 typicality and\n 8\n     adequacy requirements, the movant is afforded the \u201cmost adequate plaintiff\u201d presumption.\n 9\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I); Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. That presumption \u201cmay be\n10\n     rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the presumptively\n11\n     most adequate plaintiff\u2026 will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.\u201d\n12\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Further, \u201cjust because \u2018the presumption is rebuttable\n13\n     does not mean it may be set aside for any reason that the court may deem sufficient.\u2019\u201d In re\n14\n     Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 899 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 729 n.2). To rebut\n15\n     the presumption at this stage, \u201c[c]ompeting movants must convince the district court that the\n16\n     presumptive lead plaintiff would not be adequate.\u201d Mersho, 6 F.4th at 901.\n17\n            No proof has been presented that Robinson would be inadequate or atypical, and there\n18\n     is no plausible basis to assert that he would be anything less than the consummate fiduciary\n19\n     for the class. As described more fully in his motion and accompanying declaration, Robinson\n20\n     shares substantially similar questions of law and fact with the members of the class and his\n21\n     claims are typical of class members\u2019 claims. Doc. No. 18 at 6; Doc. No. 18-4. Robinson and\n22\n     all class members allege Defendants violated the Exchange Act, and Robinson purchased\n23\n     Company securities at prices artificially inflated due to Defendants\u2019 misrepresentations and\n24\n     omissions, and he was damaged thereby. Id. Robinson is not aware of any unique defenses\n25\n     Defendants could raise against him and, in sum, he has the ability and desire to represent the\n26\n     class fairly and adequately.\n27\n            In fact, of all movants only the Lovingier Trust suffers from adequacy concerns \u2013\n28\n\n                                                   9\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 28       Filed 02/09/26    Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n 1   insofar as their chosen counsel has already missed the very first filing deadline without any\n 2   excuse or explanation. Lovingier Trust offers nothing in the record to assuage concerns that\n 3   future deadlines may also be missed, or that the class may be prejudiced by the Lovingier\n 4   Trust\u2019s appointment. See, e.g., Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc., 726 F.2d 1346,\n 5   1352 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming denial of class certification where counsel missed the\n 6   class\u2011certification deadline, explaining that \u201cthe counsel then in the case could take a good\n 7   case and lose it for a large class\u201d); Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-cv-01139,\n 8   2013 WL 1287416, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) (decertifying a class after finding\n 9   plaintiffs\u2019 counsel was \u201cdilatory and ha[d] failed to prosecute [the] action adequately\u201d). 5\n10          As such, Robinson should be appointed as lead plaintiff, and no other movant is\n11   entitled to consideration. All competing motions have either withdrawn (Doc. No. 23 \u2013\n12   Singh Trust; Doc. No. 27 - Poudrier & Rotness) or failed to comply with the PSLRA\u2019s\n13   requirements.\n14          IV.      ROBINSON\u2019S CHOICE OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPROVED\n15          The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and retain counsel, subject\n16   only to the Court\u2019s approval. See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at\n17   729, at 734 (\u201cWhile the appointment of counsel is made subject to the approval of the court,\n18   the Reform Act clearly leaves the choice of class counsel in the hands of the lead\n19   plaintiff.\u201d).The Rosen Law Firm P.A., The Schall Law Firm as co-lead counsel, and Martin\n20   & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as liaison counsel, have the expertise, resources, and experience needed\n21   to effectively conduct this litigation. See Doc. Nos. 18-6, 18-7, 18-8 (firm resumes).\n22   Accordingly, Robinson\u2019s selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., The Schall Law Firm as\n23   co-lead counsel and Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as liaison counsel for the class should be\n24   approved.\n25\n     5\n26     See also, LRCiv 7.2(i) (\u201cIf a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the\n     requirements of this Local Rule, or if the unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and\n27   file the required answering memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent\n     to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion\n28\n     summarily.\u201d).\n                                                   10\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 28      Filed 02/09/26    Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n 1         V.     CONCLUSION\n 2         For the foregoing reasons, Robinson respectfully requests that the Court grant his\n 3   motion and enter an Order: (1) appointing Robinson as lead plaintiff; (2) approving his\n 4   selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and The Schall Law Firm as co-lead counsel and\n 5   Martin & Bonnett P.L.L.C. as liaison counsel for the class; and (3) denying the competing\n 6   motions.\n 7          Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February 2026.\n 8\n                                                 By: s/Jennifer Kroll\n 9                                               MARTIN & BONNETT P.L.L.C.\n                                                 Susan Martin (AZ#014226)\n10                                               Jennifer Kroll (AZ#019859)\n11                                               4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185\n                                                 Phoenix, Arizona 85018\n12                                               Telephone: (602) 240-6900\n                                                 Fax: (602) 240-2345\n13\n                                                 Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com\n14                                                       jkroll@martinbonnett.com\n                                                 [Proposed] Liaison Counsel for Movant and\n15                                               the Class\n16\n                                                 THE SCHALL LAW FIRM\n17                                               Andrew J. Brown (pro hac vice)\n                                                 Adam L. Rosen (pro hac vice)\n18\n                                                 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460\n19                                               Los Angeles, CA 90067\n                                                 Phone: (310) 301-3335\n20                                               andrew@schallfirm.com\n21\n                                                 adam@schallfirm.com\n\n22                                               THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.\n                                                 Phillip Kim (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n23                                               Laurence M. Rosen (pro hac vice forthcoming)\n24                                               275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor\n                                                 New York, NY 10016\n25                                               Telephone: (212) 686-1060\n                                                 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com\n26\n                                                         lrosen@rosenlegal.com\n27                                               [Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Movant and\n28                                               the Class\n\n                                                 11\n     MOVANT PETER ROBINSON\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO COMPETING LEAD\n                                       PLAINTIFF MOTIONS\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:36.649648-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025030419939","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-09T18:09:32.655195-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:30.144607-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-09","time_filed":"18:48:27","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-09.003","pacer_sequence_number":96,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition re: 20 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 22 MOTION to Appoint AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL filed by Peter Robinson. (Kroll, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/453255099/","id":453255099,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71969472/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/468142561/","id":468142561,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/26/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-02-09T14:06:01.469676-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T12:36:13.832993-07:00","sha1":"47f88b736f68322849d11a1ff5ac2acbe81c5591","page_count":16,"file_size":747771,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT      Document 26      Filed 02/09/26   Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   DON BIVENS, PLLC\n     Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n 2   15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n 3   Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n     Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n 4   don@donbivens.com\n 5\n     Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n 6   Movant the Lovingier Family\n 7   KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n 8   Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n     250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n 9   New York, NY 10177\n     Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n10\n     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n11   kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n12   Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n13   the Lovingier Family and\n     Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n14\n15\n                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n17\n                                               )\n18    Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A         )    No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n      DTD 02/18/2019, Individually and on )\n19\n      Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )\n20                                             )    OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF LAW\n                         Plaintiff,            )    IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE\n21                                             )    LOVINGIER FAMILY\u2019S MOTION\n             v.                                )    FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD\n22\n      Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Jack L. )       PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS\n23                                             )    SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL\n      Sinclair, and Curtis Valentine,\n                                               )    AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE\n24\n                         Defendants.           )    COMPETING MOTIONS FOR\n25                                             )    APPOINTMENT\n                                               )\n26\n27\n28\n\f            Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                 Document 26               Filed 02/09/26             Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS\n                                                                                                                                   Page:\n 2\n     I.        INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1\n 3\n     II.       ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 2\n 4\n               A.       The Lovingier Family is the Presumptive \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d and\n 5\n                        the Court Should Appoint it as Lead Plaintiff ............................................... 2\n 6\n                        1.        The Lovingier Family Has the Largest Financial Interest in the\n 7                                Relief Sought ...................................................................................... 2\n 8                      2.        The Lovingier Family \u201cOtherwise Satisfies\u201d the Requirements of\n 9                                Rule 23 ................................................................................................ 2\n\n10                      3.        Competing Movants Cannot Rebut the Presumption That the\n                                  Lovingier Family is the \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d ........................... 3\n11\n               B.       Mr. Robinson is Susceptible to Unique Defenses ......................................... 6\n12\n13             C.       The Poudrier/Rotness Group is Susceptible to Unique Defenses.................. 8\n\n14   III.      CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 11\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n                                                                         i\n\f          Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                     Document 26               Filed 02/09/26            Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1                                                  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2                                                                                                                                   Page(s):\n 3   Cases\n\n 4   Armour v. Network Associates, Inc.,\n       171 F.Supp.2d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................................................. 3\n 5\n     Bender v. Vertex Energy, Inc.,\n 6     No. 4-24-CV-290, 2024 WL 588445 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024).................................................... 5, 6\n\n 7   Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation,\n       562 F.Supp.3d 174 (D. Ariz. 2021) .................................................................................................. 3\n 8\n     Burns v. UP Fintech Holding Ltd.,\n 9     No. CV 23-4842-CBM-BFMX, 2024 WL 387261 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024) ............................... 10\n\n10   Camp v. Qualcomm Inc.,\n       No. 18-CV-1208, 2019 WL 277360 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) ........................................................ 7\n11\n     Carson v. Clarent Corp.,\n12     No. C 01-03361 CRB, 2001 WL 1782712 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2001) ............................................. 5\n\n13   Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc.,\n       No. C07-06140MHP, 2008 WL 3925289 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2008).............................................. 9\n14\n     Ferrari v. Gisch,\n15     225 F.R.D. 599 (C.D. Cal. 2004)...................................................................................................... 5\n\n16   GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc.,\n      No. 17-CV-06779-RS, 2018 WL 1388488 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ........................................ 5, 6\n17\n     In re Boeing Co. Aircraft Sec. Litig.,\n18      No. 19 CV 2394, 2019 WL 6052399 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) ....................................................... 7\n\n19   In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n        No. C 02-1200 SBA, 2004 WL 3316309 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004) ........................................... 8, 11\n20\n     In re Cavanaugh,\n21      306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 2, 3\n\n22   In re Donnkenny Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n        171 F.R.D. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ...................................................................................................... 9\n23\n     In re Gemstar-TV Guide Int\u2019l, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n24      209 F.R.D. 447 (C.D. Cal. 2002)...................................................................................................... 9\n\n25   In re Network Assocs., Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n        76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .............................................................................................. 9\n26\n     In re Party City Sec. Litig.,\n27      189 F.R.D. 91 (D.N.J. 1999) ............................................................................................................ 8\n\n28   In re PolarityTE, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n        No. 2:18-CV-510-JNP, 2019 WL 220129 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2019) ................................................. 8\n                                                                          ii\n\f          Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT                    Document 26               Filed 02/09/26           Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n        67 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Ohio 1999) .............................................................................. 5, 7, 10, 11\n 2\n     In re Waste Mgmt., Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n 3      128 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D. Tex. 2000) ........................................................................................ 7, 11\n\n 4   Isaacs v. Musk,\n        No. 18-CV-04865-EMC, 2018 WL 6182753 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018) ...................................... 10\n 5\n     Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp.,\n 6     No. CV 19-10701 DDP (EX), 2021 WL 3473975 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)................................. 10\n\n 7   Larmay v. AMMO Inc.,\n       No. CV-24-02619-PHX-DJH (ESW), 2025 WL 2548618 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) ......................... 3\n 8\n     Lomingkit v. Apollo Educ. Grp. Inc.,\n 9     No. CV-16-00689, 2016 WL 3345514 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2016) ..................................................... 3\n\n10   Montesano v. Eros Int'l PLC,\n      No. CV1914125JMVJAD, 2020 WL 1873015 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) ........................................... 6\n11\n     Haynie v. Cornell University,\n12     No. 3:20-CV-467, 2020 WL 6043947 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020) .................................................... 8\n\n13   Perez v. HEXO Corp.,\n       No. 19 CIV 10965, 2020 WL 905753 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020)..................................................... 7\n14\n     Reitan v. China Mobile Games & Ent. Grp., Ltd.,\n15     68 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ................................................................................................ 6\n\n16   Stires v. Eco Sci. Sols., Inc.,\n        No. CV 17-3707(RMB/KMW), 2018 WL 5784817 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2018) ................................. 10\n17\n     Sved v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,\n18     No. CIV-04-0886-PHX-MHM, 2005 WL 8158448 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18, 2005) .................................. 2\n\n19   Switzenbaum v. Orbital Scis. Corp.,\n       187 F.R.D. 246 (E.D. Va. 1999) ....................................................................................................... 5\n20\n     Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc.,\n21     No. 18-cv2293-FLW-TJB, 2018 WL 5801379 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018) ............................................ 9\n\n22   Tenneson v. Nikola Corp.,\n       No. CV-23-02131, 2024 WL 905244 (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2024) ....................................................... 3\n23\n     Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp.,\n24     No. CV-07-2204-PHX-FJM, 2008 WL 942273 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2008) ................................... 9, 10\n\n25   Waterford Twp. Police v. Mattel, Inc.,\n      No. 17CV04732VAPKSX, 2017 WL 10667732 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) ............................... 4, 5\n26\n     Statutes\n27\n     15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4.................................................................................................................. 1, 3\n28\n\n                                                                        iii\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 26       Filed 02/09/26    Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   I. INTRODUCTION\n 2          Lead Plaintiff Movant the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988 (the\n 3   \u201cLovingier Family\u201d or \u201cMovant\u201d) respectfully submits this omnibus memorandum of law in\n 4   opposition to the competing motions and in further support of its motion for appointment as\n 5   Lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of Lead Counsel. Four motions seeking appointment\n 6   as lead plaintiff were filed in this Action by: (1) the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13,\n 7   1988 (the \u201cLovingier Family\u201d) (ECF No. 22); (2) Peter Robinson (\u201cMr. Robinson\u201d) (ECF No.\n 8   18); (3) Carolle Poudrier and Leslie Rotness (the \u201cPoudrier/Rotness Group\u201d) (ECF No. 20);\n 9   and (4) Singh Family Revocable Trust u/a dtd 02/18/2019 (the \u201cSingh Family\u201d) (ECF No. 16).\n10   The Singh Family withdrew its motion on January 27, 2026 (ECF No. 23).\n11          The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \u201cPSLRA\u201d) provides that the\n12   Court shall appoint as Lead Plaintiff the movant who: (1) files the complaint or a timely motion\n13   for appointment as lead plaintiff; (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by\n14   the class; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n15   Procedure (\u201cRule 23\u201d). 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), (iii).\n16          The Lovingier Family has the largest financial interest in the relief sought with asserted\n17   losses of $(259,313.88). See ECF No. 22-4. The competing movants fall well short, with Mr.\n18   Robinson asserting losses of $(188,976.61) (ECF No. 18-5) and the Poudrier/Rotness Group\n19   asserting combined losses of $(158,889.00) (ECF No. 21-1). The Lovingier Family also\n20   otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, as it is adequate to represent the Class\u2019s\n21   interests and its claims are typical of putative Class members. ECF No. 22-6. The Lovingier\n22   Family is thus the presumptive \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d\n23          No basis exists to rebut this presumption. Should a competing movant seek to rebut the\n24   presumption based on the Lovingier Family\u2019s delayed filing, such attempt(s) should be\n25   rejected. As evidenced by the Supplemental Declaration of Don Bivens submitted\n26   simultaneously herewith, the Lovingier Family sought in good faith to file its Motion before\n27   the deadline but, due to technical issues, ultimately filed its Motion before the start of normal\n28   business hours at 7:27 a.m. the following morning. This minor delay did not prejudice the\n\n                                                    1\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26       Filed 02/09/26    Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   competing movants and thus cannot serve as a basis to rebut the presumption. Further, the\n 2   Lovingier Family\u2014unlike Mr. Robinson and the Poudrier/Rotness Group\u2014satisfies the\n 3   adequacy and typicality requirements of Rule 23 without saddling the Class with numerous\n 4   law firms and without grouping unrelated investors with no pre-existing relationship. For all\n 5   the reasons set forth herein, the Lovingier Family should be appointed Lead Plaintiff and its\n 6   selection of Lead Counsel should be approved.\n 7   II. ARGUMENT\n 8            A.     The Lovingier Family is the Presumptive \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d and\n                     the Court Should Appoint it as Lead Plaintiff\n 9\n10                   1.   The Lovingier Family Has the Largest Financial Interest in the\n                          Relief Sought\n11\n              \u201cTo determine the presumptively most adequate plaintiff, the Court must identify the\n12\n     plaintiff with \u2018the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.\u2019\u201d Sved v. Matrixx\n13\n     Initiatives, Inc., No. CIV-04-0886-PHX-MHM, 2005 WL 8158448, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18,\n14\n     2005) (citations omitted). In determining which movant has the largest financial interest, \u201cthe\n15\n     district court must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs and determine which\n16\n     one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.\u201d In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir.\n17\n     2002).\n18\n              Here, the Lovingier Family asserts losses of $(259,313.88) (ECF No. 22-4), exceeding\n19\n     Mr. Robinson\u2019s asserted losses of $(188,976.61) (ECF No. 18-5) by more than 25% and the\n20\n     Poudrier/Rotness Group\u2019s asserted $(158,889.00) combined loss (ECF No. 21-1) by more than\n21\n     35%. The Lovingier Family unequivocally possesses the \u201clargest financial interest in the relief\n22\n     sought.\u201d This factor weighs heavily in favor of the Lovingier Family\u2019s appointment as Lead\n23\n     Plaintiff.\n24\n                     2.   The Lovingier Family \u201cOtherwise Satisfies\u201d the Requirements\n25                        of Rule 23\n26            \u201cIf the plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the class\n27   satisfies Rule 23(a) requirements, then that plaintiff becomes the presumptively most adequate\n28   plaintiff.\u201d Sved, 2005 WL 8158448, at *2. At this stage, a movant \u201cmust only make a prima\n\n                                                     2\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26        Filed 02/09/26     Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   facie showing\u201d that it satisfies the adequacy and typicality requirements. Tenneson v. Nikola\n 2   Corp., No. CV-23-02131, 2024 WL 905244, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2024) (citing In re\n 3   Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730)).\n 4          Here, the Lovingier Family satisfies these minimal, prima facie requirements. The\n 5   Lovingier Family purchased Sprouts securities during the Class Period and subsequently\n 6   suffered damages resulting from Defendants\u2019 materially false and misleading conduct. See\n 7   ECF No. 22-1 at 7-8. The Lovingier Family\u2019s claims arise from the same course of conduct as\n 8   the putative class members, thus making a \u201cprima facie showing that [it] satisfies the typicality\n 9   requirement of Fed. R. P. 23(a)(3).\u201d Tenneson, 2024 WL 905244, at *8.\n10          The Lovingier Family also satisfies the adequacy requirement of Rule 23 because there\n11   are no potential conflicts between it and the other Class members, it has sufficient interest in\n12   the outcome of the case to ensure vigorous advocacy, and it has retained competent,\n13   experienced counsel to represent the Class. See ECF No. 22-1 at 8; Tenneson, 2024 WL\n14   905244, at *8 (\u201cTo determine adequacy, the Court considers \u2018whether the class representative\n15   and counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and whether the class\n16   representative and his counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class.\u2019\u201d)\n17   (quoting Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, 562 F.Supp.3d 174, 181 (D. Ariz. 2021)).\n18                 3.    Competing Movants Cannot Rebut the Presumption That the\n                         Lovingier Family is the \u201cMost Adequate Plaintiff\u201d\n19\n20          The Lovingier Family has demonstrated it is the presumed \u201cmost adequate plaintiff.\u201d\n\n21   This presumption may be rebutted \u201conly by proof that the presumptively adequate plaintiff\n\n22   \u2018will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class\u2019 or \u2018is subject to unique defenses\n\n23   that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.\u2019\u201d Lomingkit v. Apollo\n\n24   Educ. Grp. Inc., No. CV-16-00689, 2016 WL 3345514, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2016) (quoting\n\n25   15 U.SC. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). \u201cSpeculation is \u2018insufficient to rebut the lead plaintiff\n\n26   presumption.\u2019\u201d Larmay v. AMMO Inc., No. CV-24-02619-PHX-DJH (ESW), 2025 WL\n\n27   2548618, at *5 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) (quoting Armour v. Network Associates, Inc., 171\n\n28   F.Supp.2d 1044, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). The competing movants have no such proof and\n\n\n                                                      3\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26        Filed 02/09/26     Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   therefore cannot rebut the presumption that the Lovingier Family is the \u201cmost adequate\n 2   plaintiff.\u201d\n 3          If competing movants seek to rebut the presumption on the basis of the Lovingier\n 4   Family\u2019s delayed filing, the Court should reject such efforts. \u201c[W]hile the PSLRA\u2019s deadline\n 5   is strict, it does not rob the district court of [its] discretion\u201d to consider motions made after the\n 6   deadline has passed. Waterford Twp. Police v. Mattel, Inc., No. 17CV04732VAPKSX, 2017\n 7   WL 10667732, at *4 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017).\n 8          The deadline for motions for appointment as lead plaintiff to be filed in this action was\n 9   January 26, 2026. See ECF No. 22-5. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, local counsel\n10   was unable to file the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion until approximately 7.5 hours after the\n11   deadline. On January 26, 2026, the Lovingier Family\u2019s proposed lead counsel, Kahn Swick &\n12   Foti, LLC (\u201cKSF\u201d), provided its local counsel, Don Bivens, PLLC (\u201cBivens\u201d), with the\n13   Lovingier Family\u2019s finalized Motion for Appointment and related papers (ECF No. 22, the\n14   \u201cMotion\u201d) prior to the midnight deadline. See Supplemental Declaration of Don Bivens in\n15   Further Support of the Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and\n16   Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel (\u201cSupp. Bivens Decl.\u201d), at \u00b6 5. Bivens was unable\n17   to file the Motion prior to the midnight deadline, however, because the firm had not previously\n18   utilized Don Bivens\u2019s CM/ECF and/or PACER account(s) with Multifactor Authentication\n19   (\u201cMFA\u201d) to make a filing, which only recently became mandatory. See Supp. Bivens Decl. at\n20   \u00b6 6. Bivens was able to resolve this issue and file the Lovingier Family\u2019s motion by\n21   approximately 7:27 a.m. local time the following morning, just under 7.5 hours after the\n22   deadline. Id. at \u00b6 7.\n23          Courts typically consider delayed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff where, as\n24   here: (1) the delay did not \u201cresult from a scheme to manipulate the size of the movant\u2019s\n25   financial loss\u201d; (2) the delay did not prejudice the other movants nor obstruct the Court in\n26   \u201censuring that the lead plaintiff is appointed at the earliest possible time\u201d; and (3) \u201crefusing to\n27   consider the motion [would] undermine the PSLRA\u2019s preference for appointing the plaintiff\n28   with the greatest financial stake in the outcome.\u201d Bender v. Vertex Energy, Inc., No. 4-24-CV-\n\n                                                      4\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26       Filed 02/09/26   Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   290, 2024 WL 588445, at *10-11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2024). The Lovingier Family\u2019s submission\n 2   satisfies all three of these considerations.\n 3          First, because the Lovingier Family moved by itself, there is no issue of loss-size\n 4   manipulation with last minute group cobbling. Courts have found that motions for appointment\n 5   filed just hours after the deadline give little to no risk of loss calculation manipulation\u2014\n 6   especially when the movant \u201cis a single investor, not a group of investors who were hastily\n 7   gathered together after the deadline in response to an earlier filing.\u201d Waterford Twp. Police v.\n 8   Mattel, Inc., 2017 WL 10667732, at *4 (\u201cWhile it may be possible for a single investor to\n 9   review a timely filed motion, manipulate his individual financial losses, and change his filings\n10   to gain an unfair advantage, this task would be difficult to undertake in one hour.\u201d); see also\n11   Ferreira v. Funko, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-02319-VAP-PJWX, 2020 WL 3246328, at *4 (C.D. Cal.\n12   June 11, 2020) (where motions were filed \u201conly hours late,\u201d the court believed \u201cthe risk of\n13   Funko Investor Group, Hurt, and Gerber Kawasaki manipulating financial loss calculations\n14   was low or zero\u201d).\n15          Second, the 7.5-hour delay occurred outside of normal business hours and, therefore,\n16   did not prejudice the other competing movants, nor did it delay the Court in appointing the\n17   Lead Plaintiff at the earliest possible time. See GGCC, LLC v. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc., No.\n18   17-CV-06779-RS, 2018 WL 1388488, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (finding twenty-four\n19   hour delay did not cause prejudice or delay); see also Waterford Twp. Police v. Mattel, Inc.,\n20   2017 WL 10667732, at *4 (finding one hour untimeliness did not cause prejudice or delay).\n21   The court in Waterford Twp. Police found that courts typically find prejudice or significant\n22   delay only where there is \u201cegregious tardiness,\u201d such as filing weeks or months beyond the\n23   deadline. 2017 WL 10667732, at *4 (citing Ferrari v. Gisch, 225 F.R.D. 599, 603 (C.D. Cal.\n24   2004) (rejecting filing \u201cover a year\u201d late)); see also In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., 67 F. Supp.\n25   2d 803, 818 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (rejecting filing 30 days late); Switzenbaum v. Orbital Scis.\n26   Corp., 187 F.R.D. 246, 251 (E.D. Va. 1999) (rejecting filing 60 days late); Carson v. Clarent\n27   Corp., No. C 01-03361 CRB, 2001 WL 1782712, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2001) (rejecting\n28   filing 17 days late).\n\n                                                     5\n\f       Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 26         Filed 02/09/26   Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1          The Lovingier Family\u2019s Motion was not egregiously tardy as Bivens filed the Motion\n 2   the following morning, before the start of normal business hours. The risk of prejudice to the\n 3   competing movants is essentially non-existent because, as mentioned above, the Lovingier\n 4   Family\u2019s loss was always going to be larger than that of Mr. Robinson and the\n 5   Poudrier/Rotness Group. \u201cThere is similarly little reason to believe that considering [the\n 6   Lovingier Family\u2019s] motion would foil the overall goals of the PSLRA\u2019s time provisions \u2018to\n 7   ensure that the lead plaintiff is appointed at the earliest possible time and to expedite the lead\n 8   plaintiff process.\u2019\u201d GGCC, LLC, 2018 WL 1388488, at *4.\n 9          Third, \u201crefusing to consider [the Lovingier Family\u2019s] motion would be an unnecessarily\n10   stringent application of the statutory deadlines that would undercut the PSLRA\u2019s preference\n11   for appointing the plaintiff with the greatest financial stake in the outcome.\u201d GGCC, LLC,\n12   2018 WL 1388488, at *4; see also Reitan v. China Mobile Games & Ent. Grp., Ltd., 68 F.\n13   Supp. 3d 390, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (granting movant with greatest financial interest whose\n14   motion came after the deadline \u201cis more in keeping with the policy intentions of the PSLRA\n15   than punishing [the proposed lead plaintiff] by enforcing a procedural bar\u201d); Bender, 2024 WL\n16   588445, at *11 (same). The Lovingier Family \u201chas clearly \u2018suffered the greatest financial\n17   losses over the other movants\u2019 . . . . Put simply, [the Lovingier Family] \u2018is precisely the type\n18   of plaintiff Congress hoped would become lead plaintiff.\u2019\u201d Montesano v. Eros Int'l PLC, No.\n19   CV1914125JMVJAD, 2020 WL 1873015, at *9 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) (quoting Reitan, 68 F.\n20   Supp. 3d at 399).\n21          Accordingly, as the presumptively most adequate plaintiff with by far the greatest\n22   financial interest in the litigation, the Lovingier family should be appointed Lead Plaintiff. But\n23   even if the Lovingier Family were not the most adequate plaintiff (which it is), unique defenses\n24   would still plague the competing movants.\n25          B.     Mr. Robinson is Susceptible to Unique Defenses\n26          Mr. Robinson is susceptible to disqualifying unique defenses that militate against his\n27   appointment. While the Lovingier Family submitted a Declaration providing the Court with\n28   certain biographical and identifying information about Terry Clay Lovingier and Barbara Kaye\n\n                                                     6\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 26        Filed 02/09/26   Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   Lovingier (trustees of the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988) (ECF No. 22-6),\n 2   Mr. Robinson provided no such declaration which would enable the Court to make an informed\n 3   determination as to his ability to adequately represent the Class. \u201cAlthough it generally suffices\n 4   for a lead plaintiff movant to make a prima facie showing of adequacy, to do so a movant must\n 5   supply some information about its ability to perform the role of lead plaintiff diligently and\n 6   effectively.\u201d In re Boeing Co. Aircraft Sec. Litig., No. 19 CV 2394, 2019 WL 6052399, at *5\n 7   (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Camp v.\n 8   Qualcomm Inc., No. 18-CV-1208, 2019 WL 277360, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) (declining\n 9   to appoint individual with largest financial interest as lead plaintiff in light of his failure \u201cto\n10   include any basic details about himself\u201d); Perez v. HEXO Corp., No. 19 CIV 10965, 2020 WL\n11   905753, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2020) (same). While Mr. Robinson\u2019s motion vaguely stated\n12   he \u201cworks in the real estate industry\u201d (ECF No. 18 at 7), it provided no information on his\n13   educational background. Mr. Robinson\u2019s failure to provide the Court with adequate\n14   information to assess his adequacy precludes his appointment. See Perez v. HEXO Corp., 2020\n15   WL 905753, at *3 (finding movant\u2019s failure to provide basic information, including\n16   educational background, raised skepticism that movant \u201cpossesses the requisite sophistication\n17   to serve as lead plaintiff in this action\u201d). Further, without a corroborating declaration, what\n18   information Mr. Robinson does provide is unreliable. Mr. Robinson\u2019s inability or\n19   unwillingness to provide the Court with information sufficient to make a prima facie\n20   determination as to his adequacy undermines his ability to serve the Class\u2019s interests as lead\n21   plaintiff.\n22           Mr. Robinson would also saddle the putative Class with three law firms. In addition to\n23   seeking approval of his selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., he also seeks approval of The\n24   Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel and Martin & Bonnet P.L.L.C. as Liaison Counsel for\n25   the Class (ECF No. 18 at 8). \u201c[C]ourts have been concerned that the representation of Lead\n26   Plaintiffs by numerous law firms will likely result in lawyer driven litigation.\u201d In re Waste\n27   Mgmt., Inc. Sec. Litig., 128 F. Supp. 2d 401, 415 n.9 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (citing In re Telxon, 67\n28   F. Supp. 2d at 815-16; see also In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C 02-1200 SBA, 2004 WL\n\n                                                     7\n\f       Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26        Filed 02/09/26   Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   3316309, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004) (selection of multiple law firms \u201chints that it is the\n 2   law firms, and not [the movant] who is running this litigation\u201d).\n 3          \u201cThe potential for duplicative services and the concomitant increase in attorneys\u2019 fees\n 4   work against the approval of more than one law firm, especially in cases in which one law firm\n 5   has the proven ability to adequately manage and litigate securities class actions.\u201d In re Party\n 6   City Sec. Litig., 189 F.R.D. 91, 115 (D.N.J. 1999). Thus, while courts must give appropriate\n 7   \u201cweight to plaintiffs\u2019 self-selection of class counsel,\u201d where plaintiffs selected three law firms,\n 8   the court in Haynie v. Cornell University found \u201cthe proposed counsel structure [was]\n 9   unnecessarily duplicative\u201d and would \u201cnot encourage judicial economy and efficiency.\u201d No.\n10   3:20-CV-467, 2020 WL 6043947, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020).\n11          Mr. Robinson does not explain what benefit having three firms \u2013 including a proposed\n12   \u201cliaison counsel,\u201d with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and The Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead\n13   Counsel \u2013 would confer to the Class in this case. Such lack of explanation has caused courts\n14   to be wary of appointing lead plaintiff movants. See In re PolarityTE, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.\n15   2:18-CV-510-JNP, 2019 WL 220129, at *4 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2019) (\u201cAlthough all proposed\n16   counsel appear qualified, Lawi has entirely failed to justify the appointment of three separate\n17   law firms as counsel in this matter. This court is concerned that the appointment of three law\n18   firms will only lead to exorbitant legal fees and duplicative filings.\u201d).\n19          Further, Mr. Robinson does not provide any qualifications for the Court to assess his\n20   ability to manage his proposed legal team. Courts are appropriately wary when \u201ca sole\n21   individual\u201d seeks to manage \u201cnot one, but several law firms.\u201d In re Calpine Corp. Sec. Litig.,\n22   2004 WL 3316309, at *4 (denying motion for lead plaintiff seeking appointment of multiple\n23   law firms as lead counsel). As noted above, Mr. Robinson, \u201cprovides no evidence that he\n24   could, in fact, fairly and adequately represent the class. Nor does he justify why he needs the\n25   legal services of so many firms.\u201d Id.\n26          C.     The Poudrier/Rotness Group is Susceptible to Unique Defenses\n27          The Poudrier/Rotness Group is also susceptible to unique defenses. \u201cAlthough the\n28   PSLRA does not explicitly prohibit a group of unrelated individuals from acting as lead\n\n                                                     8\n\f       Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT        Document 26        Filed 02/09/26   Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   plaintiff, \u2018courts have uniformly refused to appoint as lead plaintiff groups of unrelated\n 2   individuals, brought together for the sole purpose of aggregating their claims in an effort to\n 3   become the presumptive lead plaintiff.\u2019\u201d Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp., No. CV-07-\n 4   2204-PHX-FJM, 2008 WL 942273, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2008) (quoting In re Gemstar-TV\n 5   Guide Int\u2019l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 209 F.R.D. 447, 451 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). The Poudrier/Rotness\n 6   Group provides no evidence that Ms. Poudrier and Ms. Rotness were organically joined\n 7   together to aggregate losses. They provide no information about any relationship pre-dating\n 8   this Action. Courts discourage unrelated aggregation of losses as it runs afoul to the PSLRA\u2019s\n 9   intention to discourage lawyer-driven litigation. See In re Network Assocs., Inc., Sec. Litig.,\n10   76 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (\u201cTo allow lawyers to designate unrelated\n11   plaintiffs as a \u2018group\u2019 and aggregate their financial stakes would allow and encourage lawyers\n12   to direct the litigation.\u201d) (quoting In re Donnkenny Inc. Sec. Litig., 171 F.R.D. 156, 158\n13   (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., No. C07-06140MHP, 2008 WL\n14   3925289, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2008) (\u201c[I]gnoring the basis of the group formation and\n15   appointing a group of unrelated investors undercuts the primary purpose of the PSLRA: to\n16   eliminate lawyer-driven litigation.\u201d).\n17          Ms. Poudrier and Ms. Rotness live in two different countries, on opposite sides of the\n18   North American continent, with Leslie Rotness living in Washington state, and Carolle\n19   Poudrier living in Qu\u00e9bec, Canada (ECF No. 21-4 at \u00b6\u00b6 2-3). See Tsirekidze, 2008 WL 942273,\n20   at *4 (\u201cFrom their papers, it appears that the Farukh \u2018Group\u2019 consists of three completely\n21   unrelated individuals from different parts of the country. There is no suggestion how they plan\n22   to work together as a cohesive unit.\u201d). The Poudrier/Rotness Group\u2019s joint declaration gives\n23   only conclusory assurances of its cohesiveness, such as its two members\u2019 \u201cshared interest in\n24   prosecuting the case in a collaborative and likeminded manner.\u201d ECF No. 21-4 at \u00b6 6. Courts\n25   have rejected substantially similar representations. See Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., No.\n26   18-cv-2293-FLW-TJB, 2018 WL 5801379, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018) (\u201cAlthough they\n27   submitted a timely declaration, the declaration lacks any mention of contact prior to filing the\n28   motion: it merely states that the group is made up of investors who have shared \u2018interests in\n\n                                                    9\n\f        Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26         Filed 02/09/26   Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   prosecuting the case in a collaborative, likeminded manner,\u2019 an identical representation to one\n 2   that a court in this district rejected as \u2018conclusory.\u2019\u201d) (quoting Stires v. Eco Sci. Sols., Inc., No.\n 3   CV 17-3707(RMB/KMW), 2018 WL 5784817, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2018)).\n 4          The Poudrier/Rotness Group\u2019s joint declaration further outlines a divisive decision-\n 5   making structure, stating: \u201cIn the event that such a disagreement arises, we agree to resolve\n 6   such disagreement by a majority vote, in which each of us possesses a number of votes equal\n 7   to our losses incurred in connection with our Class Period purchases of Sprouts securities,\n 8   calculated in terms of U.S. dollars.\u201d ECF No. 21-4 at \u00b6 5. The Poudrier/Rotness Group already\n 9   has the lowest financial interest of the competing movants, and its decision-making structure\n10   would allow litigation decisions to be made by one investor with an even smaller financial\n11   interest. See Burns v. UP Fintech Holding Ltd., No. CV 23-4842-CBM-BFMX, 2024 WL\n12   387261, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024) (finding a substantially similar decision-making\n13   structure, \u201craises the possibility that litigation decisions will be made by a single investor with\n14   a smaller financial stake in the litigation\u201d); see also Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., No. CV 19-\n15   10701 DDP (EX), 2021 WL 3473975, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021); Isaacs v. Musk, No. 18-\n16   CV-04865-EMC, 2018 WL 6182753, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018)). Such a structure\n17   contravenes the PSLRA\u2019s preference for the lead plaintiff to have the greatest financial interest\n18   in the relief sought.\n19          The PSLRA\u2019s preference for a singular lead plaintiff rather than a group of unrelated\n20   persons is to avoid conflicting interests in favor of a unified voice for the Class, while also\n21   avoiding lawyer-driven litigation. See In re Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d 803 at 813; Tsirekidze,\n22   2008 WL 942273, at *3 (\u201c[W]hen unrelated investors are cobbled together, the clear\n23   implication is that counsel, rather than the parties, are steering the litigation.\u201d). This concern\n24   is especially prevalent, whereas here, there are multiple law firms representing different\n25   individuals\u2019 interests within the group. In re Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 813. The\n26   Poudrier/Rotness Group\u2019s motion identified both Pomerantz LLP as \u201cCounsel for Movants\n27   Leslie Rotness and Carolle Poudrier and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\u201d and Bronstein,\n28   Gerwitz & Grossman, LLC as \u201cAdditional Counsel for Movant Leslie Rotness.\u201d ECF No. 20\n\n                                                      10\n\f       Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT         Document 26        Filed 02/09/26   Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1   at 15-16. The Poudrier/Rotness Group provides no explanation as to why Leslie Rotness\n 2   requires separate counsel from the Class. Their separate representation raises concerns that\n 3   Carolle Poudrier and Leslie Rotness are unlikely to work as a unified group, as their choice of\n 4   counsel is not even unified. \u201cSuch a \u2018group\u2019 would be a \u2018lead plaintiff\u2019 in name only; in\n 5   substance, those individuals would essentially constitute a collection of lead plaintiffs,\n 6   unbound by any allegiance to one another and unlikely to function as a unified whole. . . . the\n 7   Court would be left with little assurance that the \u2018group\u2019 speaks with a collective voice.\u201d In re\n 8   Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 813.\n 9          Further, like Mr. Robinson, the Poudrier/Rotness Group would assign three law firms\n10   as counsel, raising additional concerns of lawyer-driven litigation. See In re Waste Mgmt., 128\n11   F. Supp. 2d at 415 n.9 (citing In re Telxon, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 815-16); In re Calpine, 2004 WL\n12   3316309, at *4.\n13   III.   CONCLUSION\n14          For all of the foregoing reasons, the Lovingier Family respectfully requests that this\n15   Court deny the competing motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of selection\n16   of Lead Counsel and: (1) appoint the Lovingier Family to serve as Lead Plaintiff; (2) approve\n17   the Lovingier Family\u2019s selection of KSF as Lead Counsel for the Class; (3) grant such other\n18   and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n19\n20   DATED: February 9, 2026                    Respectfully submitted,\n21                                              /s/ Don Bivens\n22                                              DON BIVENS, PLLC\n                                                Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n23                                              15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n24                                              Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n                                                Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n25                                              don@donbivens.com\n26\n                                                Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n27                                              Movant the Lovingier Family\n28\n\n                                                    11\n\f     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT   Document 26        Filed 02/09/26   Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1                                    KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n                                      Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n 2                                    250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n 3                                    New York, NY 10177\n                                      Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n 4                                    Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n 5                                    kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n\n 6                                    Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n                                      the Lovingier Family and Proposed\n 7                                    Lead Counsel for the Class\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n                                            12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:44.313153-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"025030417876","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479561510/","id":479561510,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71969472/26/1/singh-family-revocable-trust-ua-dated-2182019-v-sprouts-farmers-market/","date_created":"2026-05-18T09:21:42.555060-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-22T04:35:47.247548-07:00","sha1":"5cd0dea157cc5e1eccb2b7811fb494c72f9361eb","page_count":3,"file_size":268636,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.26.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185/gov.uscourts.azd.1469185.26.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Docusign Envelope ID: 316B9F2F-3800-42B6-9290-D631923310D3\n                     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT             Document 26-1   Filed 02/09/26   Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n                 DON BIVENS, PLLC\n           1\n                 Don Bivens (AZ # 005134)\n           2     15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 205\n                 Scottsdale, AZ 85254\n           3     Telephone: (602) 762-2661\n           4     don@donbivens.com\n\n           5     Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff\n                 Movant the Lovingier Family\n           6\n           7     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC\n                 Kim E. Miller (pro hac vice to be submitted)\n           8     250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n           9     New York, NY 10177\n                 Telephone: (212) 696-3732\n          10     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498\n                 kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com\n          11\n          12     Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Movant\n                 the Lovingier Family and\n          13     Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class\n          14\n                                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n          15\n                                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA\n          16\n                                                             )\n          17        Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A         )      No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT\n          18        DTD 02/18/2019, Individually and on )\n                    Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )\n          19                                                 )      SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF\n                                       Plaintiff,            )      DON BIVENS IN FURTHER SUPPORT\n          20                                                 )      OF THE LOVINGIER FAMILY\u2019S\n                           v.                                )      MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS\n          21\n                    Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., Jack L. )         LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL\n          22                                                 )      OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD\n                    Sinclair, and Curtis Valentine,\n          23                                                 )      COUNSEL\n                                       Defendants.           )\n          24                                                 )\n                                                             )\n          25\n          26\n          27\n          28\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 316B9F2F-3800-42B6-9290-D631923310D3\n                     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT             Document 26-1   Filed 02/09/26   Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n           1              I, Don Bivens, hereby declare as follows:\n           2              1.      I am the managing partner of the law firm of Don Bivens, PLLC, local counsel\n           3     for Lead Plaintiff Movant the Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988 (the \u201cLovingier\n           4     Family\u201d), which seeks appointment as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21 of the Securities\n           5     Exchange Act of 1934 in the above-captioned Action.\n           6              2.      I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.\n           7              3.      I submit this Supplemental Declaration in further support of the Lovingier\n           8     Family\u2019s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of its Selection of Lead\n           9     Counsel (see ECF No. 22, the \u201cMotion\u201d).\n          10              4.      I was engaged by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (\u201cKSF\u201d) to serve as local counsel\n          11     for the Lovingier Family in this Action on or about January 20, 2026.\n          12              5.      After my firm reviewed the Motion and related papers on January 26, 2026,\n          13     attorneys at KSF provided my firm with finalized PDFs for filing later that night. A paralegal\n          14     at my firm attempted to electronically file the Motion and supporting papers via the District\u2019s\n          15     CM/ECF system shortly thereafter.\n          16              6.      Because my paralegal had not previously utilized my CM/ECF and/or PACER\n          17     account(s) with Multifactor Authentication to make a filing, which only recently became\n          18     mandatory, he was unable to independently file the Motion. My paralegal attempted but was\n          19     unable to reach me the evening of January 26, 2026, to obtain access to my personal Microsoft\n          20     Authenticator application to complete the filing before midnight.\n          21              7.      My paralegal and I connected via telephone early in the morning on January 27,\n          22     2026. By 7:27 a.m., we successfully filed the Motion together using my personal Multifactor\n          23     Authentication application, approximately 7.5 hours after the January 26, 2026, filing\n          24     deadline. My paralegal has since received his own Microsoft Authenticator access to my\n          25     CM/ECF and Pacer accounts, and he can now file on my behalf independently. But on the\n          26     night of January 26, 2026, he unexpectedly ran into the new requirement for Multifactor\n          27     Authentication, and the system simply would not allow him to file the Motion on my behalf.\n          28     He was technically prevented from doing so.\n\n                                                                    2\n\fDocusign Envelope ID: 316B9F2F-3800-42B6-9290-D631923310D3\n                     Case 2:25-cv-04416-JJT             Document 26-1   Filed 02/09/26   Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n           1              8.      I apologize to the Court and all Parties and movants and respectfully submit that\n           2     these technical issues have now been resolved, with redundancies implemented to prevent\n           3     future filing issues.\n           4              I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America\n           5     that the foregoing facts are true and correct.\n           6              Executed on Thursday, February 5, 2026, in Scottsdale, Arizona.\n           7\n           8\n           9\n          10                                                                Don Bivens\n          11\n          12\n          13\n          14\n          15\n          16\n          17\n          18\n          19\n          20\n          21\n          22\n          23\n          24\n          25\n          26\n          27\n          28\n\n                                                                    3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T09:21:54.872323-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"025030417877","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Attachment SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DON BIVENS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE LOVI","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-02-09T14:06:01.442501-08:00","date_modified":"2026-05-06T12:12:29.974083-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-09","time_filed":"14:13:09","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":84,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition re: 18 MOTION to Appoint Peter Robinson as Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel, 20 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Carolle Poudrier & Leslie Rotness filed by Lovingier Family Trust Dated October 13, 1988.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DON BIVENS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE LOVINGIER FAMILYS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF ITS SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL)(Bivens, Donald) (Entered: 02/09/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71969472&page_size=40"}