1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ALVRUS, individually and on Case No.: 25-CV-1755 JLS (DDL) behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING JAMES ALVRUS’S 14 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE, LP f/k/a 15 APPOINTMENT AS LEAD NEXTERA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP; PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF 16 JOHN W. KETCHUM; BRIAN W. SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL, BOLSTER; TERRELL KIRK CREWS II; 17 AND AND NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.,

18 Defendants. (2) DENYING AS MOOT STEVEN J. 19 WESTON REVOCABLE TRUST’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS 20 LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL 21 OF LEAD PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF COUNSEL 22

23 (ECF Nos. 23, 24) 24 25 Presently before the Court is Movant Steven J. Weston Revocable Trust’s (“Weston 26 Trust”) Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff’s 27 Selection of Counsel (“Weston Mot.,” ECF No. 23) and Movant James Alvrus’s Motion 28 for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel (“Alvrus 1 Mot.,” ECF No. 24). Also before the Court is Weston Trust’s Non-Opposition to 2 Competing Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff’s 3 Selection of Counsel (“Non-Opp’n,” ECF No. 26) and Alvrus’s Notice that James Alvrus’s 4 Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Co-Lead Counsel is Unopposed 5 (“Not.,” ECF No. 27). 6 On July 9, 2025, Alvrus commenced this action against Defendants, alleging 7 violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended 8 by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). ECF No. 1 9 (“Compl.”). Weston Trust and Alvrus filed separate motions for appointment as lead 10 plaintiff and the selection of counsel on September 8, 2025. On October 1, 2025, Weston 11 Trust gave notice of its non-opposition to Alvrus’s Motion in light of Alvrus’s greater 12 financial interest in the action. See generally Non-Opp’n. For the reasons stated below, 13 the Court GRANTS Alvrus’s unopposed Motion (ECF No. 24) and DENIES AS MOOT 14 Weston Trust’s Motion (ECF No. 23). 15 APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF 16 I. Legal Standard 17 The PSLRA governs the selection of a lead plaintiff in private securities class 18 actions: the lead plaintiff is to be the “most capable of adequately representing the interests 19 of class members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). There is a three-step process in 20 determining the lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. In re Cavanaugh,

, 729 (9th 21 Cir. 2002). The first plaintiff to file an action governed by the PSLRA must publicize the 22 pendency of the action, the claims made, and the purported class period “in a widely 23 circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 24 4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). This notice must also alert the public that “any member of the purported 25 class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). 26 Next, the court must select the presumptive lead plaintiff. See In re Cavanaugh, 306 27 F.3d at 729–30 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)). To determine the presumptive 28 lead plaintiff, “the district court must compare the financial stakes of the various plaintiffs 1 and determine which one has the most to gain from the lawsuit.” Id. at 730. After the court 2 identifies the plaintiff with the most to gain, the court must determine whether that plaintiff, 3 based on the information he provides, “satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), in 4 particular those of ‘typicality’ and ‘adequacy.’” Id. If that occurs, that plaintiff becomes 5 the presumptive lead plaintiff. Id. If not, the court selects the plaintiff with the next-largest 6 financial stake and determines whether that plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. 7 Id. The court repeats this process until it selects a presumptive lead plaintiff. Id. 8 Finally, plaintiffs not selected as the presumptive lead plaintiff may “rebut the 9 presumptive lead plaintiff’s showing that it satisfies Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy 10 requirements.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)). This is accomplished by 11 demonstrating the presumptive lead plaintiff either “will not fairly and adequately protect 12 the interests of the class” or “is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff 13 incapable of adequately representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II)(aa)– 14 (bb). If the court determines that the presumptive lead plaintiff does not meet the typicality 15 or adequacy requirement, then it must return to step two, select a new presumptive lead 16 plaintiff, and again allow the other plaintiffs to rebut the new presumptive lead plaintiff’s 17 showing. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 731. The court repeats this process “until all 18 challenges have been exhausted.” Id. (citing In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,

, 268 19 (3d Cir. 2001)). 20 II. Analysis 21 A. Notice 22 On July 9, 2025, Movant James Alvrus filed this securities class action, see generally 23 Compl., and published notice of pendency of the action in Business Wire, Alvrus Mot. at 24 5; ECF No. 24-1 (“Jasnoch Decl.”) Ex. A. The notice publicized the pendency of the 25 action, the claims made, and the purported class period “in a widely circulated national 26 business-oriented publication or wire service.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(I). The 27 notice also alerted the public that “any member of the purported class may move the court 28 to serve as lead plaintiff.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). Therefore, Alvrus has 1 satisfied notice under the PSLRA. 2 B. Selection of Presumptive Lead Plaintiff 3 As noted above, the PSLRA provides that the “‘most capable’ plaintiff—and hence 4 the lead plaintiff—is the one who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the 5 case,” so long as that plaintiff meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 23. In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 729. Alvrus asserts financial losses in this action of 7 approximately $2,273,533. Alvrus Mot. at 6; Jasnoch Decl. Ex. C. As Alvrus contends, 8 based on the information presently available, Alvrus has the largest financial interest in 9 this action. Alvrus Mot. at 6; see also Non-Opp’n at 2. 10 Alvrus also satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements under Rule 23. 11 Typicality requires “that the claims of the class representatives be typical of those of the 12 class” and is “satisfied when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of 13 events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s 14 liability.” Armstrong v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Marisol A. v. 15 Giuliani,

(2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, 16 typicality is met because Alvrus’s claims are typical of the claims of other class members 17 in that they arise out of the same alleged misconduct by Defendants, and like other class 18 members, Alvrus acquired XPLR common units during the class period, from September 19 27, 2023, to January 27, 2025, and suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ alleged 20 misconduct. Alvrus Mot. at 7–8. 21 The adequacy requirement determines whether the class representative and their 22 counsel “have any conflicts of interest with other class members” and whether the class 23 representative and their counsel will “prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the 24 class[.]” Staton v. Boeing Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler 25 Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1998)). Here, there is no evidence of conflict between 26 Alvrus and other class members. See Alvrus Mot. at 8. Additionally, Alvrus contends his 27 counsel is “qualified, experienced, and vigorously able to conduct the litigation.”

28 Accordingly, the Court finds that, for purposes of lead plaintiff appointment, Alvrus has 1 made a showing satisfying the adequacy requirement of Rule 23. 2 Because Alvrus has the greatest financial stake and satisfies the requirements of 3 Rule 23(a), he is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff to represent the class. This 4 presumption may be rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class 5 that Alvrus either (1) “will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” or 6 (2) “is subject to unique defenses that render . . . [him] incapable of adequately 7 representing the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(3)(B)(iii)(II). No party has opposed 8 Alvrus’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. See generally Docket. There is also 9 no evidence that Alvrus has any unique defenses. Accordingly, the presumption that 10 Alvrus is the most adequate lead plaintiff has not been rebutted, and the Court therefore 11 need not proceed to consider the motion of the movant with the next largest financial 12 stake. See In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730–31. Absent proof that the lead plaintiff 13 candidate with the largest financial interest does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, 14 said candidate is “entitled to lead plaintiff status.” In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732. 15 Accordingly, Alvrus is entitled to be the lead plaintiff in this action. 16 APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL 17 Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff is given the right, subject to court approval, to 18 “select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). “[T]he 19 district court should not reject a lead plaintiff’s proposed counsel merely because it would 20 have chosen differently.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court,

, 711 (9th Cir. 2009) 21 (citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 732, 734 n.14). “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a 22 reasonable choice of counsel, the district court should generally defer to that choice.” Id. 23 at 712 (citing Cendant,

; H.R. Rep. No. 104-369 (1995) (Conf. Rep.), 24 reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 730, 734). 25 Alvrus asks the Court to approve his selection of Scott+Scott as lead counsel. Mot. 26 at 9. The Court has reviewed the firm’s resume, see Jasnoch Decl. Ex. E, and the Court is 27 satisfied that Alvrus has made a reasonable choice of counsel. The law firm of Scott+Scott 28 has extensive experience in litigating securities class actions, and it appears that it will 1 adequately represent the interests of all class members. See Alvrus Mot. at 9 n.1, 10 n.2; 2 || Jasnoch Decl. Ex. E. Accordingly, the Court defers to Alvrus’s choice of counsel. 3 CONCLUSION 4 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Movant James Alvrus’s Motion for 5 || Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel (ECF No. 24) 6 DENIES AS MOOT Movant Weston Trust’s Motion for Appointment as Lead 7 || Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel (ECF No. 23). The Court 8 || hereby ORDERS that: 9 1. Movant James Alvrus is APPOINTED as Lead Plaintiff. 10 2. Movant James Alvrus’s selection of Scott+Scott as lead counsel is 11 ||] APPROVED. 12 3. Pursuant to the Court’s order entered on August 15, 2025, see ECF No. 12, 13 within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, the Lead Plaintiff James Alvrus and 14 ||Defendants SHALL submit a joint proposed schedule for the filing of an amended 15 || complaint and Defendants’ response(s) thereto. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: November 7, 2025 paca a, meseaiteeetd- 18 on. Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28