United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
CORT CORWIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
VIEWRAY, INC., SCOTT DRAKE, AJAY BANSAL, and JAMES F. DEMPSEY, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS.12, 14]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Cort Corwin has filed a class action lawsuit against
Defendants alleging securities fraud. Corwin and putative
class members Plymouth County Retirement Association
(Plymouth) and David Bedell both separately ask for
appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
Plymouth County Retirement Association's motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and have its attorneys appointed
lead counsel. The Court DENIES Bedell's
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have his attorneys
appointed lead counsel.
September 13, 2019 Plaintiff Corwin sued Defendants ViewRay,
Inc., Scott Drake, Ajay Bansal, and James
Dempsey. With his complaint, Corwin alleges that,
beginning in March 2019, Defendants “disseminated or
approved . . . false or misleading statements” that
artificially inflated the prices for ViewRay common
stock. Corwin states that the stock prices later
fell significantly in August 2019 when ViewRay announced
quarterly results that were different from Defendants'
earlier statements. Corwin suggests that there is a class of
investors who were damaged when they purchased ViewRay stock
at artificially high prices between March 15, 2019, and
August 8, 2019 (the class period).
asks the Court to choose him as lead plaintiff. On September 13,
Corwin filed a public notice of the class action in
other investors in the putative class filed similar motions
asking to be appointed lead plaintiff. On November 8,
2019 Plymouth filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
and to have the Court appoint their attorneys, Scott䧊,
as lead counsel.On November 12, 2019, Bedell filed motions
for appointment as lead plaintiff and to have the court
appoint Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, as lead
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) controls
private securities-related class actions. The PSLRA
requires the plaintiff to give public notice of the proposed
class action that includes notice to any member of the
purported class of their ability to serve as lead
plaintiff. The PSLRA instructs courts to
“consider any motion made by a purported class member
in response to the notice, . . . and  appoint as lead
plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff
class that the court determines to be most capable of
adequately representing the interests of class members . . .
identify the “most adequate plaintiff, ” section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the PSLRA provides a presumption that
the most adequate plaintiff is:
person or group of persons that---
(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in
response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i);
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and
(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PSLRA allows a member of the purported class to rebut the
presumption that the statutorily favored representative is
the most adequate plaintiff if that member provides proof
that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff “will
not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class” or “is subject to unique ...