Olson v. Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 15 Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

SETH OLSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 3:15-cv-00562-CRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF
AND LEAD COUNSEL

v.
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

/

Plaintiff Seth Olson moves to be appointed Lead Plaintiff and that law firm Robbins

18

Arroyo LLP be appointed Lead Counsel in a putative shareholder class action for alleged

19

disclosure violations in connection with Defendant Riverbed Technologies proposed

20

acquisition by Thoma Bravo, LLC. Mot. (dkt. 15). Olson filed his Complaint (dkt. 1) in this

21

Court on February 5, 2015, and shortly thereafter published notice of the action. No other

22

class member has filed a motion for lead plaintiff status or opposed Olson’s motion.

23

However, counsel for Riverbed Technology has notified this Court—as Olson’s

24

counsel had not so done—that seven separate class actions, alleging the same claims and

25

representing the same class of Riverbed stockholders, have been consolidated before the

26

Delaware Court of Chancery into a single case titled In re Riverbed Technology Stockholders

27

Litigation, C.A. No. 10484-VCG. In fact, the parties in the Delaware action finalized a

28

Stipulation of Settlement on April 8, 2015, that provides for a complete release on behalf of

1

the same class of stockholders of all claims against the defendants related to the proposed

2

acquisition, including claims related to Riverbed’s public disclosures. See Stipulation of

3

Settlement (dkt. 18 at Ex. 1). Additionally, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order

4

preliminarily certifying a class consisting of all Riverbed stockholders who held shares

5

between December 14, 2014, and the closing of the proposed acquisition, and temporarily

6

enjoined class members from pursuing the settled claims pending the final settlement

7

approval hearing on July 27, 2015. See Scheduling Order (dkt. 18 at Ex. 2) at ¶¶ 2, 8.

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Accordingly, the Court finds it is in the best interest of the class to DENY Olson’s
instant motion without prejudice to re-file pending resolution of the Delaware action. See 15
U.S.C. § 78u-4(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 22, 2015

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2