RUSSELL HUNTER v. BLUE RIDGE BANKSHARES INC BRIAN PLUM JUDY GAVANT WILLIAM BEALE (2024)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiff Russell Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action against Defendants Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (“Blue Ridge”); Brian K. Plum; Judy C. Gavant; and G. William Beale (collectively, “Defendants”), for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). See generally Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Currently pending before this Court is Hunter's unopposed motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and for approval of his chosen counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., to be appointed as lead counsel pursuant to the Exchange Act, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”). Dkt. No. 9.

For the reasons stated below, Hunter's motion is GRANTED; Hunter is appointed as lead plaintiff, and his choice of counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., is appointed as lead counsel.¹

I. Background

Hunter brings this putative “class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Blue Ridge securities” during a putative class period between March 10, 2023 and October 31, 2023, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Compl., ¶ 2. Hunter seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ alleged violations under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5). Id. ¶¶ 1-2.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants “made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) [Blue Ridge's] financial statements from March 10, 2023 to the present included certain errors; (2) as a result, [Blue Ridge] would need to restate its previously filed financial statements from March 10, 2023 to October 31, 2023; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.” Dkt. Nos. 10, 1. Plaintiff contends that on October 31, 2023, after the stock market closed, Blue Ridge filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission “a current report on Form 8-K [the Restatement Announcement] announcing it would need to restate its consolidated financial statements for its 2022 Annual Report, and the first two quarters of 2023.” Compl., ¶ 30.

The Restatement Announcement stated, inter alia, that:

On October 30, 2023, management of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) and the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors, after consultation with the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and its primary regulator, determined that certain specialty finance loans that, as previously disclosed, were placed on nonaccrual, reserved for, or charged off in the interim periods ended March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023 should have been reported as nonaccrual, reserved for, or charged off in earlier periods.

As a result, the Company's audited financial statements included in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, and unaudited interim financial statements included in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023 should no longer be relied upon and will be restated. The restated financial statements will be reflected in an amendment to the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, and amendments to the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the interim periods ended March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023. The Company expects to file these amendments to Form 10-K and Form 10- Q in the next several weeks.

Net Impact of Financial Restatements

The Company does not believe that the restatement reflects any significant financial impact on the Company's financial condition as of June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2023, or any trends in the Company's business or its prospects.

The effect of the adjustments will result in lower net income and earnings per share in the year ended December 31, 2022, and greater net income and earnings per share in the quarter period ended March 31, 2023, and lower net loss and losses per share for the quarter and six-month periods ended June 30, 2023. The cumulative impact on net income over these periods is expected to be an increase of $2.6 million.

Balance sheets amounts, including loans held for investment, allowance for credit losses (previously, allowance for loan losses), accrued interest receivable, deferred tax asset, other assets, and stockholders’ equity, are affected as of December 31, 2022 and March 31, 2023. The restatements are not expected to have any impact on total balance sheet amounts, including stockholders’ equity, as of June 30, 2023. It is expected loans held for investment and allowance for credit losses will each be reduced in the amount of $4.5 million as of June 30, 2023. The adjustment to the allowance for credit losses to implement the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) accounting standard as of January 1, 2023, will also be restated, thus affecting the cumulative effect adjustment to stockholders’ equity as of January 1, 2023, and resulted in the positive adjustment to earnings in the six months ended June 30, 2023.

***

Review of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Management has evaluated the effect of the facts leading to the restatement of the financial statements for the periods ended December 31, 2022, March 31, 2023, and June 30, 2023, on its conclusion of the adequacy of internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. The Company has concluded that a material weakness existed in the timely risk grading, nonaccrual status, and, thus, in the determination of the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses for the specialty finance portfolio of loans, and such material weakness does not exist in the remainder of its loan portfolio.

Id., at ¶ 30, Dkt. No. 10.

Following this announcement, “the price of Blue Ridge stock fell $1.06 per share, or 33.65%, to close at $2.09 on November 1, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.” Compl., at ¶ 32. Hunter claims that he and other putative class members suffered significant loss and damages as a result of “Defendant's wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares.” Id. at ¶ 33.

Hunter filed this lawsuit on December 5, 2023. See Dkt. No. 1. Hunter brings this “action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who acquired Blue Ridge securities publicly traded on the NYSE American during the Class Period, and who were damaged thereby (the ‘Class’). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of the Individual Defendants’ immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.” Id. at ¶ 34.

Also on December 5, 2023, The Rosen Law Firm issued a notice to potential class members of the action informing them of their right to move to serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days of the date of the issuance of said notice (“the Notice”). Dkt. No. 10-1. The Notice was announced in Business Wire, a business-oriented wire service. Id.

On February 5, 2024, Hunter filed the instant motion to appoint counsel and to appoint lead plaintiff. See Dkt. Nos. 9-10.

On February 26, 2024, Hunter filed a notice of non-opposition to his February 5, 2024 motion. Dkt. No. 11. In the notice, Hunter stated that “[n]o other putative class member filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff” and that “[t]he deadline to file any opposition has passed.” Id.

On March 5, 2024, the Court endorsed a proposed stipulation jointly submitted by the parties, whereby “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days of appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants shall meet and confer regarding scheduling and shall thereafter submit a proposed order stating the deadline by which (i) Lead Plaintiff must file an amended complaint (if any); and (ii) Defendants must file any responsive pleading(s). Until the deadline entered by the Court for (ii) in the preceding sentence, Defendants shall have no obligation to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint, or any amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 15.

II. Discussion

“Even when a motion to appoint lead plaintiff is unopposed, the Court must still consider the factors under the PSLRA to ensure that the movant is the most adequate plaintiff.” City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Foot Locker, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 310, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (Bulsara, M.J.).

A. Notice Requirement

As a preliminary matter, “the PSLRA requires that the plaintiff who files the first action publish notice to the class within 20 days of filing the action, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, advising members: (I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.” Darish v. N. Dynasty Mins. Ltd., No. 20-CV-5917 (ENV) (RLM), 2021 WL 1026567, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2021) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)). “Even where, as here, no party has objected to the adequacy of notice, ‘courts have an independent duty to scrutinize the published notice and ensure that the notice comports with the objectives of the PSLRA.’ ” Lemm v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., No. 24-CV-1118 (NRM) (JRC), 2024 WL 2022213, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2024) (citation omitted).

On December 5, 2023, The Rosen Law Firm published, pursuant to the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), the Notice (Dkt. No. 10-1) in Business Wire, “a ‘widely circulated national business-oriented ․ wire service[.]’ ” Crass v. Yalla Grp. Ltd., No. 21-CV-6854 (PAE), 2021 WL 5181008, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2021) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)); see 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i)); see also Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Tr. v. LaBranche & Co., 229 F.R.D. 395, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (recognizing notice published over the Business Wire).

The Notice explained that The Rosen Law Firm had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Blue Ridge during the Class Period. Dkt. No. 10-1. The Notice added that, “[a]ccording to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, [D]efendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) [Blue Ridge's] financial statements from March 10, 2023 to the present included certain errors; (2) as a result [Blue Ridge] would need to restate its previously filed financial statements from March 10, 2023 to October 31, 2023; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.” Id. The Notice further noted that “[w]hen the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.” Id.

The Notice advised that a class action lawsuit has already been filed, and that if anyone wishes to serve as lead plaintiff, that person “must move the Court no later than February 5, 2024.” Dkt. No. 10-1. The Notice explained that “[a] lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.” Id. The Notice cautioned that “NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED” in this action. Id. (capitalization in original).

As the Notice included the pendency of the action, the claims asserted herein, the purported class period, and the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion, the Court finds that the PSLRA's notice requirement has been satisfied. Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *3 (“The notice included the class period alleged in the Lemm complaint, the purported class of purchasers, and the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion.”).

B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

“The PSLRA establishes the procedure for the appointment of a lead plaintiff in an Exchange Act case.” Darish, 2021 WL 1026567, at *4. “The PSLRA requires the court to appoint as ‘lead plaintiff’ the member of the class that it determines to be the ‘most adequate plaintiff,’ i.e., the member ‘most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.’ ” Chitturi v. Kingold Jewelry, Inc., No. 20-CV-2886 (LDH) (SJB), 2020 WL 8225336, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2020) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)) (emphasis added).

1. Legal Standards

“Courts generally follow a two-step inquiry to determine the most adequate plaintiff.” Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *3. First, the court must “ ‘adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff ․ is the person or group of persons that:’ (1) ‘has either filed the complaint or made a [timely] motion’ to be appointed as lead plaintiff(s); (2) ‘in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and’ (3) ‘otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’ ” Chitturi, 2020 WL 8225336, at *4 (citing § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)); see Murphy v. Argo Blockchain plc, 683 F. Supp. 3d 211, 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (Bulsara, M.J.) (outlining the requirements for a lead plaintiff).

Second, once the court is satisfied that it has found the presumptive lead plaintiff, the court may then consider whether that presumption has been “rebutted” by a member of the purported plaintiff class. Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *3 (citing15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). This presumption “may be rebutted only upon proof that the presumptively adequate plaintiff” either “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.” Chitturi, 2020 WL 8225336, at *4 (citing § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)); see also Maliarov v. Eros Int'l PLC, No. 15-CV-8956 (AJN), 2016 WL 1367246, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)–(bb)); see 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)–(bb).4)).

Here, Hunter satisfies both steps of the lead plaintiff inquiry.

2. The First Step

At the first step, Hunter satisfies all three requirements: Hunter has (a) filed the complaint or made a timely motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff; (b) in the determination of the court, Hunter has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (c) otherwise satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

a. Hunter has filed the complaint or made a timely motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

Hunter filed the Complaint and made a timely motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, as he filed the instant motion on February 5, 2024 (Dkt. No. 9), i.e., within the 60-day statutory period. See 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i)(II); see, e.g., Damri v. LivePerson, Inc., No. 23-CV-10517 (PAE), 2024 WL 1242510, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2024) (“Damri filed the complaint, and is the only person seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, satisfying the first prong”); Murphy, 683 F. Supp. 3d at 216 (finding that a motion for lead plaintiff was timely filed). Hunter filed a PSLRA certification attesting that Hunter is willing to serve as a representative of the class and is willing to provide testimony at deposition and/or trial in this action. See Dkt. No. 10-2.

The Court therefore turns to the second and third elements of the PSLRA's test.

b. Hunter has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.

Hunter has the largest financial interest in the relief sought. In assessing the financial interests of parties competing for lead plaintiff status, courts generally consider:

(1) the total number of shares purchased during the class period;

(2) the net shares purchased during the class period (in other words, the difference between the number of shares purchased and the number of shares sold during the class period);

(3) the net funds expended during the class period (in other words, the difference between the amount spent to purchase shares and the amount received for the sale of shares during the class period); and

(4) the approximate losses suffered.

In re Gentiva Sec. Litig., 281 F.R.D. 108, 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (referring to factors as the “Olsten Factors”) (citing In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)); see also Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *4. “The fourth factor, the approximate losses suffered, is considered to be the most important.” Murphy, 683 F. Supp. 3d at 217.

Hunter alleges to have “lost approximately $36,775.24 in connection with purchases of Blue Ridge securities.” Dkt. No. 10; see also Dkt. Nos. 10-2, 10-3. Hunter is not aware of any other movant that has suffered greater losses in Blue Ridge securities during the Class Period; indeed, no such movant has emerged. Dkt. No. 10, at 8. “Because an alternative lead plaintiff has not come forward, let alone one with a larger financial stake, the Court assumes—subject to the discussion below of the Rule 23 factors—that [the sole plaintiff's] financial interest renders him suitable to serve as lead plaintiff.” Damri, 2024 WL 1242510, at *3. Here, no other putative class member has filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff—nor has another putative class members appeared to assert a larger financial stake. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, Hunter satisfies the largest financial interest requirement.

c. Hunter otherwise satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Hunter otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requirements for class certification are commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates LLC, 780 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2015). In a PSLRA motion to appoint lead plaintiff, however, “the Court considers only whether the proposed plaintiff has made a “preliminary showing” that two of Rule 23’s requirements—typicality and adequacy—are satisfied.” Murphy, 683 F. Supp. 3d at 221-22; see also Damri, 2024 WL 1242510, at *3 (explaining that “only the last two factors—typicality and adequacy—are pertinent”) (citation omitted); Martingano v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. 06-CV-1625, 2006 WL 1912724, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2006) (“[A]t this stage in the litigation, one need only make a preliminary showing that the Rule's typicality and adequacy requirements have been satisfied.” (quotations and citations omitted)); In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (“A wide ranging analysis under Rule 23 is not appropriate and should be left for consideration of a motion for class certification.”) (citation omitted).

i. Typicality

“Typicality is satisfied where the claims arise from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove defendant's liability.” Murphy, 683 F. Supp. 3d 211, 222 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (internal citations omitted). A movant's claim “need not be identical to the claims of the class to satisfy the typicality requirement.” City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr. Inc., No. 08-CV-1418, 2009 WL 10709107, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009) (quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 10750336 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009). Rather, courts appoint lead plaintiffs when their “claims are based on the same alleged false or misleading statements and omissions attributed to [d]efendants during the same period as the other potential class members’ claims.” Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213 at *4 (citations omitted).

Here, Hunter's claims are typical of the claims asserted by the class. Like members of the putative class, Hunter “alleges that Defendants violated the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's business.” Dkt. No. 10. Therefore, as Plaintiffs contend, “[Hunter's] interests are closely aligned with the other Class members’ and [Hunter's] interests are, therefore, typical of the other members of the Class.” Id.

ii. Adequacy

For a lead plaintiff to satisfy the adequacy requirement,

(1) there should be no conflict between the interests of the class and the named plaintiff nor should there be collusion among the litigants; and (2) the parties’ attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation. Additionally, the lead plaintiff should have a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy.

Kehoe v. 3D Sys. Corp., No. 21-CV-1920 (NGG) (TAM), 2021 WL 5408923, *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2021).

Here, there is nothing about Hunter's interests that appear antagonistic to the interests of the other putative class members, especially given the fairly standard class allegations. There is no evidence to suggest a conflict of interest between Hunter and the class that he seeks to represent. Cf. Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997) (“The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”).

Further, there is no doubt that The Rosen Law Firm is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation. Indeed, as noted below, The Rosen Law Firm has handled, and been appointed lead counsel, in myriad other cases with similar fact patterns. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Arrival SA, No. 22-CV-172 (DG), 2022 WL 20539729, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022) (appointing The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel); In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 247 F.R.D. 432, 439-40 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“the Rosen Law Firm is well-qualified to serve as lead counsel in this matter”) (Sullivan, J.). Finally, Hunter attests that he understands the role of lead plaintiff and has declared his commitment to litigating this action through trial. Dkt. No. 10-2.

Accordingly, Hunter satisfies the first step in the two-part inquiry.

3. The Second Step

The presumption that Hunter should be appointed lead plaintiff “may be rebutted only upon proof” that Hunter “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” or is “subject to unique defenses that render [him] incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z-1(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II); accord Constance Sczesny Tr. v. KPMG LLP, 223 F.R.D. 319, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “Conclusory assertions and mere speculation will not suffice.” Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *5.

Here, no rebuttal has been offered, nor has any proof been shown to demonstrate Hunter will not fairly or adequately represent the class. Indeed, there is no indication that there are any unique defenses that Defendants could raise that would render Hunter inadequate to represent the Class.

Hunter therefore fully satisfies the two-step inquiry and shall be designated as lead plaintiff.

C. Appointment of Lead Counsel

“The PSLRA permits the lead plaintiff to select and retain lead counsel, subject to the Court's approval.” Lemm, 2024 WL 2022213, at *7; see also In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 247 F.R.D. at 439 (“Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(v), the lead plaintiff shall select and retain counsel to represent the class, subject to the court's approval.”). “There is a ‘strong presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff's decisions as to counsel selection.’ ” Salinger v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., No. 19-CV-8122 (VSB), 2019 WL 6873807, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2019) (quoting Sallustro v. CannaVest Corp., 93 F. Supp. 3d 265, 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)).

In support of that request, The Rosen Law Firm has submitted an exhibit setting forth his firm's experiences as class counsel and attaching a resume of the firm which references over seventy-five securities class actions or other actions in which the firm has served as counsel or, in many cases, lead or co-lead counsel. Dkt. No. 10-4; see also Kristal v. Mesoblast Ltd., No. 20-CV-08430 (PMH), 2020 WL 7647200, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020) (“[R]eview of the Rosen Law Firm's Biography [ ] indicates that the Rosen Law Firm has extensive experience prosecuting securities litigation class actions and is well qualified to represent the proposed class.”).

The Court therefore grants The Rosen Law Firm's request to serve as lead counsel in this action.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Hunter's motion. The Court appoints Hunter as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as lead counsel. The parties shall comply with the Court's so-ordered stipulation (Dkt. No. 15), to wit: the parties shall file, by May 28, 2024, a proposed order setting forth the date by which Hunter must file an amended complaint (if any) and the date by which Defendants must file a responsive pleading.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “[A]n order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel qualifies as a non-dispositive matter under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing this Court to issue a written order (i.e., a Memorandum and Order) rather than a recommended disposition (i.e., a Report and Recommendation).” City of Hollywood Police Officers Ret. Sys. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 19-CV-5530 (FB) (RLM), 2019 WL 13167890, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)); see also Carpenter v. Oscar Health, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“A Magistrate Judge may issue an order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”) (collecting cases); In re Sequans Commc'ns S.A. Sec. Litig., 289 F. Supp. 3d 416 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (magistrate judge resolves, in opinion and order, competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff).

JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO United States Magistrate Judge