Mr. Michael Addis Mr. J. Wesley Earnhardt Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Mr. Michael Gerard Capeci Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd 58 S. Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747-0000 Mr. Andrew John Finn Ms. Sharon L. Nelles Sullivan & Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Mr. Gregory A. Harrison Ms. Kelly E. Pitcher Dinsmore & Shohl 255 E. Fifth Street Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Mr. Steven Francis Hubachek Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Mr. William D. Kloss Jr. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease 52 E. Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Mr. Joseph F. Murray Murray, Murphy, Moul & Basil 1114 Dublin Road, Suite 150 Columbus, OH 43215

Re: Case No. 23-3392, Kolominsky, et al. v. Root, Inc., et al.

Originating Case No. : 2:21-cv-01197 Dear Counsel, The court today announced its decision in the above-styled case.

Enclosed is a copy of the court’s published opinion together with the judgment which has been entered in conformity with Rule 36, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Yours very truly, Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk

The three relevant statements are: • Mobile is the fastest growing retail channel in the United States, as customers spend less time in front of computers and utilize smart phones for more convenient shopping.

To defeat a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” requiring more than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.

In other words, “[c]ertain alleged misrepresentations ... are immaterial as a matter of law because it cannot be said that any reasonable investor could consider them important in light of adequate cautionary language.” Halperin v. eBanker USA.COM, Inc., 295 F.3d 352, 357 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Shaw v. Digital Equip.

Much like the Third Circuit, I find that “[t]here is no suggestion that Congress intended such an incongruous approach.” Id. And I believe this standard contradicts the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Huddleston which, as discussed above, explicitly blessed the securities laws assigning liability for overlapping conduct.

v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 172 (3d Cir. 2004) (Sloviter, J., dissenting) (protesting that the majority dismissed a possibly meritorious Section 11 claim for failure to meet the Rule 9(b) standard and stating that he would have given leave to amend).

Case: 23-3392 Document: 38 Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 1 636 - 6th Floor East Courtroom, 9:00 A.M. Batchelder, Clay, Davis

Lead Plaintiff appeals the district court's order granting defendants' joint motion to dismiss in this class

action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(15 Minutes Per Side)

Mr. J. Wesley Earnhardt Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Mr. Gregory A. Harrison Dinsmore & Shohl 255 E. Fifth Street Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Mr. William D. Kloss Jr. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease P.O.

The appellate case number and caption must appear on all filings submitted to the Court.

Before preparing any documents to be filed, counsel are strongly encouraged to read the Sixth Circuit Rules at www.ca6.uscourts.gov.

Your password for district court filings will not work in the appellate ECF system.

If you have questions after reviewing the forms and the rules, please contact the Clerk's office for assistance.