Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Izogie Osaro Eke filed this putative securities class action against Lucid Group, Inc. and other defendants on May 29, 2026. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Notice published the same day in Access Newswire described the case and a proposed class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid securities between February 25, 2026 and April 13, 2026. It told putative class members they could seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
On July 28, 2026, five putative class members moved under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Perry Makarios proposed The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Hector Lopez and US Best Preservation LLC moved jointly and proposed Kirby McInerney LLP. Dean Williams proposed Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC as co-lead counsel. Michele Cervelli proposed Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC as co-lead counsel.
In August 2026, Williams, Lopez and US Best Preservation, and Cervelli each filed notices of non-opposition stating that it appeared they did not have the largest financial interest under the PSLRA. Makarios filed an opposition to the competing motions on August 11. On August 18 he told the court that no opposition to his own motion had been filed by the August 11 deadline. The court decided the matter without oral argument.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the three-step PSLRA process described in In re Cavanaugh, the court first found the notice requirement met. The Access Newswire publication described the claims and class period and advised that any putative class member could seek lead plaintiff status, and Makarios timely moved.
At step two, the court compared the movants' alleged losses. Makarios alleged a loss of $32,347.74, which exceeded the alleged losses of Lopez and US Best Preservation collectively ($20,221.11), Williams ($12,208.00) and Cervelli ($12,168.50). The other movants agreed they lacked the largest financial interest. The court then found that Makarios made the prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy required at this stage. It relied on his allegations that he bought at prices inflated by the same alleged misrepresentations as the class, knows of no unique defenses or conflicts, and has retained experienced counsel. That made him the presumptive most adequate plaintiff.
At step three, no competing movant offered evidence rebutting the presumption, and the opposition deadline had passed, so the court appointed Makarios lead plaintiff. The PSLRA leaves the choice of counsel to the lead plaintiff, subject to court approval. The court reviewed The Rosen Law Firm's resume, found Makarios's choice reasonable, and appointed the firm lead counsel. The order does not decide the merits, class certification, or any response by defendants. Its conclusion also does not separately rule on the competing movants' motions beyond granting Makarios's.
Key Takeaways
- The PSLRA process checks notice first, then identifies the movant with the largest financial interest who makes a prima facie Rule 23(a) showing, and only then lets rivals try to rebut.
- Financial interest was compared using each movant's alleged losses, and the court treated the other movants' statements that they lacked the largest interest as confirming Makarios's position.
- A prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy is enough at the appointment stage, so this order is not a class certification ruling.
- The presumption can be rebutted only with proof of inadequacy or unique defenses, and no movant offered any.
- A lead plaintiff's reasonable choice of counsel is generally given deference, and approval here followed review of the firm's resume.
Why It Matters
This is a routine, unopposed lead plaintiff appointment in the Northern District of California. It shows how the Cavanaugh and Mersho framework works when competing movants concede. The court did not resolve a contested adequacy dispute, and its discussion of Makarios's qualifications rests on his own submissions.
Practically, the order fixes who will lead the Lucid securities litigation and which firm will represent the class. It decides nothing about whether defendants made actionable misstatements. It is an unreported district court order without precedential weight, and proceedings on the claims, including defendants' response, remain ahead.