Crain Walnut Shelling, Lp v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, S

── Crain Walnut Shelling, Lp v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, S ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: CRAIN WALNUT No. 25-5435 SHELLING, LP D.C. No. ______________________________ 5:24-cv-06147- ____ EJD CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, LP, OPINION Petitioner. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE, Respondent. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.; CHARLES LIANG; DAVID WEIGAND; UNIVERSAL- INVESTMENT-GESELLSCHAFT MBH; SURENDRA J. SHAH; THEODORE C. GROSS; THEODORE R. GROSS; VALIKHAN KUNAKBAYEV; ILLINOIS TREASURER; 2 CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING V. USDC FOR THE N. DIST. OF CA, SJ MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; COVEY FINANCIAL, INC.; PEMBROKE CAPITAL LTD. CORP.; SOVEREL, INC.; DAVID BURDETTE; PRITI BHARDWAJ; ERSTE ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH; CHRISTIAN MAHE DE BERDOUARE; SUPER MICRO INVESTOR GROUP; JOSEPH AVERZA; Doctor MITHILESH K. JHA; NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Real Parties in Interest. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Argued and Submitted February 12, 2026 San Francisco, California Filed May 7, 2026 Before: N. Randy Smith, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge N.R. Smith  CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING V. USDC FOR THE N. DIST. OF CA, SJ 3 SUMMARY* Securities Class Action / Mandamus The panel denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s orders declining to appoint Crain Walnut Shelling, LP, as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). Applying the Bauman test for deciding whether to grant mandamus relief, the panel held that the district court did not commit clear error, and the other Bauman factors did not demonstrate that mandamus was appropriate. The PSLRA established a sequential process for appointing the lead plaintiff in a securities class action. First, the district court identifies the movant with the largest financial interest. Provided that movant makes a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality, the court names them the presumptive lead plaintiff. The process then becomes adversarial. Competing movants may rebut the presumption of adequacy and typicality upon proof that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or is subject to unique defenses that render that plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class. If the presumption is not rebutted, then the presumptively most adequate plaintiff must be appointed lead plaintiff. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING V. USDC FOR THE N. DIST. OF CA, SJ The panel held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption of adequacy under the PSLRA is preponderance of the evidence. The district court first applied an incorrect “genuine and serious doubt” standard, but in denying reconsideration it reasoned alternatively that Crain Walnut’s presumption of adequacy had been rebutted even under the correct presumption of the evidence standard. In its reconsideration order, the district court held that the competing plaintiff had rebutted Crain Walnut’s presumption of adequacy based on two categories of evidence: (1) filing inaccuracies; and (2) problematic testimony from Crain Walnut. The panel held that district court’s determination that Crain Walnut’s adequacy had been sufficiently rebutted based on the preponderance of the evidence did not amount to clear error because it did not leave the panel with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been committed. The panel