Harris v. Dimon et al

Filing 68

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/16/14 ORDERING the actions of Horwitz v. Dimon, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01489-KJM-EFB, and In re JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 2:13-cv-02414-KJM-EFB, are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial, and appeal; Every pleading filed in the consolidated action, or in any separate action included herein, shall bear the caption identified in the Court's February 7, 2014 Order; The Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed on March 3, 2014 in In re JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation remains the operative pleading at issue in the consolidated action. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MAYER HORWITZ, derivatively on behalf of
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,

ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:14-cv-01489-KJM-EFB

vs.
JAMES “JAMIE” DIMON; JAMES BELL;
CRANDALL C. BOWLES; STEPHEN B.
BURKE; JAMES S. CROWN; ELLEN V.
FUTTER; WILLIAM B. HARRISON, JR.;
LABAN P. JACKSON, JR.; ROBERT I. LIPP;
DAVID C. NOVAK; LEE R. RAYMOND; and
WILLIAM C. WELDON,

18

Defendants,

19

-and-

20

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,

21

Nominal Defendant.

22
23
24

In re JPMORGAN CHASE DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION

Master File No. 2:13-cv-02414-KJM-EFB

25
26

This Document Relates to: All Actions.

27
28
1

1

In consideration of the parties’ stipulation and proposed order, ECF No. 67 in 2:13-cv-

2

02414-KJM-EFB, ECF No. 67 and ECF No. 12 in 2:14-cv-01489-KJM-EFB, the court orders as

3

follows:

4

1.

The actions of Horwitz v. Dimon, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01489-KJM-EFB, and In re

5

JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 2:13-cv-02414-KJM-EFB, are hereby

6

consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial, and appeal;

7
8

2.

Every pleading filed in the consolidated action, or in any separate action included

herein, shall bear the caption identified in the Court’s February 7, 2014 Order;

9

3.

The Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed on March 3, 2014 in In

10

re JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation remains the operative pleading at issue in the

11

consolidated action;

12

4.

Pursuant to previous stipulation between the nominal defendant and the plaintiff in

13

the Horwitz action, the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer venue filed in In re

14

JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation shall be deemed filed and fully briefed with respect to the

15

complaint filed by Mr. Horwitz, with the briefs filed in opposition to the motion to dismiss or, in

16

the alternative, to transfer venue deemed filed by Mr. Horwitz, and with no need for any of the

17

defendants from the Horwitz action to further respond to Mr. Horwitz’ complaint;

18

5.

The parties from the Horwitz action, including plaintiff Mayer Horwitz, shall be

19

bound by the Court’s order on the pending motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer

20

venue filed in In re JPMorgan Chase Derivative Litigation on May 16, 2014, including, but not

21

limited to, any order denying or granting the motion, in whole or in part, and/or any order to

22

dismiss the case with prejudice or that sets future deadlines to amend or answer the Consolidated

23

Shareholder Derivative Complaint; and

24

6.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP remains Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in the

25

consolidated action, with responsibility to coordinate and supervise the efforts of plaintiffs’

26

counsel in the derivative actions, including any discovery, briefing, settlement, and trial.

27

////

28

////
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2014.

3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3