Gopu v. Luckin Coffee Inc., 1:20-cv-01747

Two federal securities class actions against Luckin Coffee Inc. (Sterckx v. Luckin Coffee, No. 20-cv-1677; Gopu v. Luckin Coffee, No. 20-cv-1747) allege accounting fraud tied to Luckin’s IPO and subsequent securities offerings.
Plaintiffs in both suits purchased Luckin securities and ADRs and assert overlapping causes of action including Section 10(b), Section 11, and control-person claims (Sections 15/20(a)); Gopu also asserts Section 12(a)(2).
Class periods in both complaints begin May 17, 2019; Sterckx ends April 2, 2020 and Gopu ends April 6, 2020.
Complaints allege substantially similar factual allegations (fabricated transactions/expenses, misstatements in public reports) and seek class damages, interest, costs, and fees.
The court evaluated consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), considering common issues of law/fact, potential prejudice to defendants, and judicial economy.
Judge Matsumoto ordered consolidation into a single master file (In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 20-cv-1677) and directed that other related securities class actions in the district be consolidated into this action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate	Cases raise common questions from same public statements and reports; consolidation promotes efficiency	Differences in claims, defendants, and class periods could preclude consolidation or cause prejudice	Consolidation ordered: common questions suffice and judicial economy favors consolidation
Whether differing causes of action, defendants, or class periods bar consolidation	Differences are minor and do not outweigh efficiency gains	Distinct claims/parties require separate handling	Differences do not prevent consolidation if common issues predominate
Whether Gopu’s extra Section 12(a)(2) claim, two additional defendants, and 4-day longer class period impede consolidation	These additions do not make cases materially different	Additional claims/defendants may create unique issues and prejudice	Court found these differences immaterial and not an impediment
Scope and maintenance of consolidated docket	Consolidate into single master file and combine filings	Possible objection to broad consolidation of related suits	Court consolidated into Master File No. 20-cv-1677 and directed related securities actions be consolidated too

Devlin v. Transportation Communs. Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1999) (consolidation is a valuable tool of judicial administration)
In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484 (9th Cir. 1987) (supporting consolidation to avoid duplication)
Atanasio v. Tenaris S.A., 331 F.R.D. 21 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (consolidation appropriate where actions relate to same public statements)
BD ex rel. Jean Doe v. DeBuono, 193 F.R.D. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (one substantial common question is enough for Rule 42(a))
Constance Sczesny Tr. v. KPMG LLP, 223 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (securities fraud actions consolidated when based on same statements/reports)
Kux-Kardos v. VimpelCom, Ltd., 151 F. Supp. 3d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (actions need not be identical to permit consolidation)
Rauch v. Vale S.A., 378 F. Supp. 3d 198 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (differences in class periods/defendants do not preclude consolidation)
Reitan v. China Mobile Games & Entm't Grp. Ltd., 68 F. Supp. 3d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (affirming consolidation where common questions predominate)
Kaplan v. Gelfond, 240 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (consolidation entered despite different class periods)
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Tr. v. LaBranche & Co., 229 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (naming of certain defendants in only some complaints does not bar consolidation)