King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al

1
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCO MUNGUIA,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
aTyr PHARMA Inc., and
SANJAY S. SHUKLA,
Defendants.
__________________________________
JOHN KING,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
aTyr PHARMA Inc., and
SANJAY S. SHUKLA,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC
ORDER
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Appoint
Counsel, and Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed by Andrea Holliday Bloom, Joshua Bloom,
Insun Lee, Anthony Fairris, and Karyn Fairris. (ECF No. 18.)
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 13

2
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff Marco Munguia filed a Complaint against Defendants
aTyr Pharma Inc. (“aTyr”) and Sanjay S. Shukla (together, “Defendants”) claiming
violations of federal securities laws related to Defendants’ development of a pharmaceutical
product named Efzofitimod. (ECF No. 1, Munguia v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No.
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC (“this action” or “the Munguia action”).)1 Plaintiff Munguia’s
Complaint seeks damages on behalf of all investors who purchased or acquired aTyr
common stock during the period between January 16, 2025, and September 12, 2025. Id.
at 2.
On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff John King filed a similar complaint in the Southern
District of California stating claims against Defendants for violations of federal securities
laws related to the development of Efzofitimod. (ECF No. 1, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et
al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC (the “King action”).) Plaintiff King’s Complaint
seeks damages on behalf of all investors who purchased or acquired aTyr common stock,
call options on aTyr common stock, and/or put options on aTyr common stock during the
period between November 7, 2024, and September 12, 2025. Id. at 2.
On December 8, 2025, Movant Michael Todd filed a motion in this action seeking
consolidation of these two cases, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of his legal
representatives as lead counsel in the consolidated action. (ECF No. 4.) On December 17,
2025, Movant Michael Todd withdrew that motion. (ECF No. 10.)
On 	December 	8, 	2025, 	Movant 	Wallace 	Madewell 	filed 	a 	motion 	seeking
consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 5.) On
the same day, Movant Wallace Madewell filed an identical motion in the King action. (ECF
No. 5, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) On December
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to docket entries in this Order refer to filings in the Munguia
action.
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 13

3
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29, 2025, Movant Wallace Madewell withdrew those motions. (ECF No. 13; ECF No. 6,
King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.)
On December 8, 2025, Movants Daniel Gron and Stanley Mwaura filed a motion
seeking appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and approval of co-lead counsel. (ECF No. 6.)
On January 5, 2026, Movants Daniel Gron and Stanely Mwaura filed a Notice of Non-
Opposition. (ECF No. 17.)
On 	December 	8, 	2025, 	Movant 	Benjamin 	Pease 	filed 	a 	motion 	seeking
consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 7.)
On December 29, 2025, Movant Benjamin Pease withdrew that motion. (ECF No. 14.)
On December 8, 2025, Movants Andrea Holliday Bloom and Joshua Bloom
(together, “Bloom Family”) filed a motion seeking consolidation, appointment as lead
plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 8.)
On December 8, 2025, Movants Insun Lee (“Lee”), Anthony Fairris, and Karyn
Fairris (together, “Fairris Family”) filed a motion seeking consolidation, appointment as
co-lead plaintiffs, and approval of lead counsel. (ECF No. 9.) On December 29, 2025,
Movants Insun Lee and Fairris Family filed a Notice of Non-Opposition indicating their
assent to the appointment of Bloom Family as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 15.)
On January 5, 2026, Movants Bloom Family, Fairris Family, and Lee (together,
“Moving Plaintiffs”) filed a joint motion (the “Joint Motion”) seeking consolidation,
appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and approval of their respective legal representatives—
Hagens 	Berman 	Sobol 	Shapiro 	LLP 	(“Hagens 	Berman”) 	and 	Pomerantz 	LLP
(“Pomerantz”)—as co-lead counsel in this action. (ECF No. 18.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 states that, “[i]f actions before the court involve
a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has written that federal district courts “enjoy
substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.” Hall v.
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 13

4
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018). The Ninth Circuit has endorsed the same principle. In re
Adams Apple, 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[C]onsolidation is within the broad
discretion of the district court.”); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.
2008); Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th
Cir. 1989).
Consolidation is a tool used to promote the efficiency of judicial proceedings.
“[C]onsolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration,
but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make
those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289
U.S. 479, 496 (1933). In exercising its discretion to order consolidation of multiple actions
presenting common issues of law or fact under Rule 42(a), a district court “weighs the
saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay,
or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); see also
Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (A “[c]ourt
should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion
and prejudice.”).
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§78u-4, et seq., a district court must adjudicate any motions to consolidate before
appointing a lead plaintiff in a securities class action brought under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Id. at § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii) (“If more than one
action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under
this chapter has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial
purposes or for trial, the court shall not make the determination required by clause (i) until
after the decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered. As soon as practicable after
such decision is rendered, the court shall appoint the most adequate plaintiff as lead
plaintiff for the consolidated actions in accordance with this paragraph.”); see also
Richardson v. TVIA, Inc., No. C 06 06304 RMW, 2007 WL 1129344, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
16, 2007).
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 13

5
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. 	Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel
The PSLRA requires that a district court “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.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). In
determining which member or members are most capable of representing the interests of
class members, a district court “shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff”
is the person or group that (a) has either filed the complaint or moved for appointment as
lead plaintiff, (b) “has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class,” and
(c) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”).
Id. at §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa)–(cc).
District courts undertake a three-step analysis to determine the most appropriate lead
plaintiff under the PSLRA. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the
plaintiff that files a complaint must publicize the action in a “widely circulated national
business-oriented publication or wire service” within twenty days of filing the complaint.
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). Second, the district court determines the presumptive lead
plaintiff by assessing financial losses suffered by those seeking appointment as the lead
plaintiff. “In other words, the district court must compare the financial stakes of the various
plaintiffs and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit. It must then focus
its attention on that plaintiff and determine, based on the information he has provided in
his pleadings and declarations, whether he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in
particular those of ‘typicality” and “adequacy.’” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. If the
plaintiff with the “largest financial stake in the controversy provides information that
satisfies these requirements,” that plaintiff shall become the “presumptively most adequate
plaintiff.” Id. Third, the district court will provide other moving plaintiffs the “opportunity
to rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and
adequacy requirements.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)).
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 13

6
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, the PSLRA provides that the “most
adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to
represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion to Consolidate
Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court consolidate the two cases in this district
asserting violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Defendants: the Munguia action and the King action. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Moving
Plaintiffs contend that consolidation is warranted because these actions “involve common
questions of both law and fact.” Id.
These 	cases 	are 	both 	federal 	securities 	class 	actions 	arising 	from 	alleged
misstatements disseminated by Defendant aTyr Pharma Inc. related to its “Phase 3,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
intravenous Efzofitimod in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.” (ECF No. 1 at 2–3; see
also ECF No. 1 at 2, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC (describing
the action in nearly identical terms).) The causes of action asserted in the two complaints
are identical. These substantial similarities weigh heavily in favor of consolidation.
Moreover, no party has indicated that they oppose consolidation.
The relevant difference between the two actions is the Class Period. In the Munguia
action, the Complaint identifies the period as “between January 16, 2025, and September
12, 2026, inclusive.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) In the King action, the complaint identifies the
period as “between November 7, 2024, and September 12, 2025, inclusive.” (ECF No. 1 at
2, King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) District courts may choose
to consolidate related actions despite “minor differences in class periods.” Alonzo v.
Dexcom Inc., No. 24-CV-1485-RSH-VET, 2024 WL 5112751, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13,
2024). For the purposes of appointing a lead plaintiff in such cases, the “longest class
period governs.” Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc., No. 13-CV-
05368-LHK, 2014 WL 2604991, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014). Here, the Class
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 13

7
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Period is the period described in the King action lasting from November 7, 2024, through
September 12, 2025, inclusive.
Consolidation of these actions is appropriate because the proceedings will be
simplified, and both actions may proceed with greater efficiency. “Courts have recognized
that class action shareholder suits are particularly well suited to consolidation pursuant
to Rule 42(a) because unification expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication,
avoids the need to contact parties and witnesses for multiple proceedings, and minimizes
the 	expenditure 	of 	time 	and 	money 	for 	all 	parties 	involved.” 	Hardy 	v. 	MabVax
Therapeutics Holdings, No. 18-CV-01160-BAS-NLS, 2018 WL 4252345, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
Sept. 6, 2018) (quoting Hessefort v. Super Micro Comput., Inc., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1056,
1060 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). The Joint Motion (ECF No. 18) is granted with respect to
consolidation.
B. 	Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs
Moving Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Bloom Family and Lee as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. (ECF No. 18 at 2.)
Moving Plaintiffs contend that Bloom Family should be appointed as co-lead
plaintiff because they suffered $791,654.76 in losses as a result of purchasing aTyr
securities during the Class Period, and that this amount is the largest financial loss among
all potential lead plaintiffs. Id. at 3. In support of their earlier, individual motion for
consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff, Bloom Family submitted the Declaration
of Lucas E. Gilmore documenting Bloom Family’s purchases of aTyr securities and
financial losses during the Class Period. (See ECF Nos. 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-4). Moving
Plaintiffs also contend that Bloom Family satisfies the typicality requirement of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because their claims arise from the purchase of aTyr
securities during the Class Period and, like other members of the class, Bloom Family
suffered damages because of Defendants’ allegedly false or misleading statements. (ECF
No. 8 at 6–7.) Moving Plaintiffs contend that Bloom Family satisfies the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a) because “there is no evidence of antagonism between [their]
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 13

8
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interests and those of proposed class members” and their substantial financial losses will
motivate them to vigorously pursue the interests of the class. Id. at 7.
Moving Plaintiffs contend that Lee should also be appointed as co-lead plaintiff
because she suffered approximately $133,498.00 in losses as a result of purchasing aTyr
securities during the Class Period. (ECF No. 18 at 3; ECF No. 9-2 at 7.) In support of their
earlier motion for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff, Lee and Fairris Family
submitted the Declaration of Jennifer Pafiti documenting her purchases of aTyr securities
and financial losses during the Class Period. (See ECF No. 9-2). Moving Plaintiffs contend
that Lee satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements for the same reasons that Bloom
Family does. (ECF No. 8 at 3; see also ECF No. 9 at 15–20.)
Moving Plaintiffs also contend that the “proposed co-lead plaintiff structure will
inure to the benefit of the Class as the co-lead plaintiffs will represent a broader cross-
section of the Class as the Bloom Family and Lee bought [aTyr] securities at different times
during the Class Period, thereby better ensuring that all class members are monitored and
protected throughout the litigation” and “bring a broader range of specialized expertise in
securities class action litigation” through the appointment of each movant’s respective
counsel. (ECF No. 18 at 4.)
1. Procedural Requirements
On October 9, 2025, notice of the pendency of this action was published in a national
business-oriented wire service entitled Globe Newswire. (ECF No. 8-6; see also ECF No.
9-2 at 16–17). The notice complied with the requirements of the PSLRA because it was
published within twenty days of the filing of the complaint, listed the claims in this action,
identified the Class Period, and advised putative class members that they had sixty days
from the date of publication of the notice to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the action.
See id.; 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A).
Bloom Family filed their earlier motion for consolidation and appointment as lead
plaintiff on December 8, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) Lee filed her equivalent motion on the same
day. Therefore, Moving Plaintiffs timely filed their motions within the permissible period
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 13

9
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
described in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) notwithstanding their filing the revised,
pending Joint Motion on January 5, 2026. (ECF No. 18.) The procedural requirements of
the PLSRA are satisfied.
2. Financial Interest
District courts consider the Olsten-Lax factors to assess which movants have the
largest financial interest in a securities class action: “(1) the number of shares purchased
during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period; (3)
the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses
suffered.” In 	re 	Olsten 	Corp. 	Sec. 	Litig., 3 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	286, 	295 	(E.D.N.Y.
1998) (citing Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036 at *5 (N.D. Ill.
Aug. 11, 1997)). The fourth factor—the total losses suffered—is the “most determinative
in identifying the plaintiff with the largest financial loss.” Richardson, 2007 WL 1129344,
at *3.
Based on the Exhibits submitted in support of their earlier motion for appointment
as lead counsel, Bloom Family has the largest financial interest in this action: $791,645.76
in alleged damages. (See ECF No. 8-2 at 2.) Lee has neither the largest nor the second-
largest financial interest in this action. (ECF No. 9-2 at 7 (declaring losses of approximately
$133,498.00).) The Court, however, considers the appointment of Bloom Family and Lee
as co-lead plaintiffs appropriate in this case based on the adequacy of Bloom Family’s
financial interest and the parties’ joint request filed in the interest of avoiding a protracted
dispute regarding appointment of lead counsel. (ECF No. 18 at 4; see also ECF No. 25,
Leong v. Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-01815-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct
14, 2025) (granting a joint motion to appoint co-lead plaintiffs in a securities class action).)
All other movants in this action have reported smaller losses than Bloom Family
and, separately, have either withdrawn their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff or
filed notices in support of the appointment of Bloom Family as lead plaintiff. Movant
Morrow reported suffering financial losses of $176,279.53, (ECF No. 4 at 14), but
withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 10.) Movant Madewell
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
9 of 13

10
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reported suffering “total LIFO losses of $95,024.54 and $175,383.13 in LIFO losses
attributable to just the common stock portion of his investment,” (ECF No. 5 at 11), but
withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 13.) Movants Gron and
Mwaura reported a combined loss of $192,706.74, (ECF No. 6 at 6), but subsequently filed
a Notice of Non-Opposition stating that they do “not have the ‘largest financial interest’ in
this litigation within the meaning of the PLSRA” and that “the record reflects that the
Bloom Family has suffered the greatest loss.” (ECF No. 17 at 2; see id. (stating that
Movants Gron and Mwuara nonetheless “remain[] ready, willing, and able” to serve as co-
lead plaintiffs, if the Court determines that Bloom Family is not an appropriate lead
plaintiff).) Movant Pease reported suffering a loss of $93,219.10, (ECF No. 7), and
withdrew his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) Movant Anthony
Fairris reported suffering losses of $92,092.00, (ECF No. 9-2 at 7), and Movant Karyn
Fairris suffered losses of $13,200.00, id., but both subsequently joined the Moving
Plaintiffs in requesting that the Count appoint only Bloom Family and Lee as co-lead
plaintiffs. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Plaintiff John King, the filing plaintiff in the King action, has
not included sufficient information in his Complaint for the Court to determine whether he
has the largest financial interest among potential lead plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1, King v. aTyr
Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC.) Plaintiff John King has also not
separately moved for appointment as lead plaintiff nor filed an opposition to other movants’
pending or withdrawn motions. The same is true for Plaintiff Marco Munguia, the filing
plaintiff in this action. (ECF No. 1.)
3. Rule 23(a)
Bloom Family and Lee, as joint movants, have demonstrated that they have the
largest financial interest in this action and, accordingly, the Court now considers whether
they otherwise satisfy “the requirements of Rule 23(a), in particular those of ‘typicality’
and ‘adequacy.’” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730. Rule 23(a) requires that “the claims
or defenses of the [lead plaintiff] are typical of the claims or defenses of the class” and that
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
10 of 13

11
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“the [lead plaintiff] will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a).
Typicality requires that courts consider “whether other members [of the class] have
the same or similar injury [as the lead plaintiff], whether the action is based on conduct
which is not unique to the [lead plaintiff], and whether other class members have been
injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508
(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). “The purpose of the typicality requirement is to assure
that the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class.” Id. Here,
Bloom Family and Lee assert claims that are typical of the class because each contends
that they purchased aTyr securities during the Class Period and—as a result of Defendants’
alleged false or misleading statements—suffered damages by virtue of aTyr Pharma Inc.’s
deflated stock price. (ECF No. 8 at 6; ECF No. 9 at 16–17.) These similarities are sufficient
to establish typicality within the meaning of Rule 23(a). See, e.g., Foster v. Maxwell Techs.,
Inc., 2013 WL 5780424, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013).
Adequacy requires that courts consider whether a lead plaintiff has any “conflicts of
interest with other class members” and whether counsel for a lead plaintiff will “prosecute
the action vigorously on behalf of the class[.]” In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 900 (9th Cir.
2021) (quotation omitted). Here, there is no indication that Bloom Family nor Lee has any
conflict of interest with other members of the class nor that either is subject to unique
defenses. Other movants’ decisions to withdraw their own motions or file a Notice of Non-
Opposition in response to the Moving Plaintiffs also suggests that other members of the
class are not aware of any conflicts of interests that might impede Bloom Family and Lee
from litigating this action on behalf of the class. Bloom Family and Lee have each filed
certifications indicating their willingness to serve as a representative party on behalf of the
class and declaring that they did not acquire aTyr Pharma Inc. securities at the direction of
counsel to participate in this action. (ECF No. 8-3 at 2, 4; ECF No. 9-2 at 19–20.) Bloom
Family and Lee have each retained counsel with experience litigating similar securities
actions. (ECF No. 8 at 2; ECF No. 8-7.)
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
11 of 13

12
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, 	Bloom 	Family 	and 	Lee 	satisfy 	the 	typicality 	and 	adequacy
requirements of Rule 23(a).
4. Rebuttal Evidence
Based on the foregoing, the Court adopts the presumption that Bloom Family and
Lee they are the most adequate plaintiffs in this consolidated action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). This presumption may be rebutted “only upon proof by a member of the
purported plaintiff class” that they “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class” or are “subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff[s] incapable of
adequately representing the class.” Id. at (a)(3)(B)(iii)(II). Here, no other party has
presented evidence suggesting that Bloom Family and Lee are inadequate representatives
of the class. Absent such proof, Bloom Family and Lee are entitled to be appointed as co-
lead plaintiffs in this action. See, e.g., Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io,
Inc., 2014 WL 2604991, at *6.
C. 	Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel
“[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the district court
should generally defer to that choice.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California,
586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). Bloom Family is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, (ECF No. 8 at 2), and previously submitted a resume describing the firm’s
extensive experience in securities litigation. (ECF No. 8-7.) Lee is represented by
Pomerantz LLP, (ECF No. 9 at 8), and likewise submitted a resume describing the firm’s
substantial experience in securities litigation. (ECF No. 9-2 at 50–109.) Based on these
firms’ experience in matters similar to this action, the appointment of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel is appropriate.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Consolidate Case, Appoint
Counsel, and Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs (ECF No. 18) filed by Andrea Holliday Bloom,
Joshua Bloom, Insun Lee, Anthony Fairris, and Karyn Fairris is granted in full. The
following cases are consolidated for all purposes under 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC (the
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
12 of 13

13
3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Consolidated Action”): Munguia v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02681-
WQH-SBC; King v. aTyr Pharma Inc. et al, Case No. 25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC. The Court
appoints Joshua Bloom, Andrea Holiday Bloom (together, “Bloom Family”) and Insun Lee
(“Lee”) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The Court appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and
Pomerantz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions in this action seeking
consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and appointment of lead counsel that have not
yet been withdrawn are denied as moot. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed in connection with the
Consolidated Action shall be filed under Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC. All
documents previously filed in the King action shall be deemed a part of the record in the
Consolidated Action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action
shall bear the following caption:
In re aTyr Pharma Inc. Class
Action Securities Litigation
_______________________________
This document relates to:
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC
Lead Case No.: 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report within
fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Order indicating the date by which they plan to file
an Amended Complaint.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02826-WQH-SBC Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
13 of 13