Salman Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 31 Motion for Leave to File (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10

SALMAN PANJWANI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
MOBILEIRON, INC., et. al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

) Case No. 15-cv-01984-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION
) OF ORDER RELATING CASES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

On September 25, MobileIron, Inc., et. al. ("Defendants")

19

filed a motion to relate three cases to the instant case pending

20

before the Court.

21

Nathanael M. Cousins sua sponte filed a similar motion, albeit

22

lacking argument in support thereof.

23

of October 1, having received no objections after waiting the

24

normal period of at least 4 days per Local Civil Rule 7-11(b), the

25

Court signed the order relating cases.

26

morning hour when the Court signed the order and the afternoon hour

27

when the order was posted by Court staff, Plaintiff filed a

28

response.

ECF No. 25.

ECF No. 28.

On September 28, Magistrate Judge

ECF No. 26.

On the morning

ECF No. 30.

Between the

Plaintiff later inquired of the Clerk on

1

the phone whether their response had been considered, and argued

2

that the response was technically on time -- even early -- pursuant

3

to the automatic extension provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Upon review, Plaintiff is correct that Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)

4

was served via U.S. Mail, which was used here.

7

2.

8

United States District Court

may provide an additional 3 days to respond where an initial motion

6

For the Northern District of California

5

within a specified time after service."

9

a response "no later than 4 days after the motion has been filed,"

See ECF No. 25-3 at

However, Rule 6(d) only applies "[w]hen a party may or must act
Local Civil Rule requires

10

not after the date of service, and thus on its face does not fall

11

under Rule 6(d).

12

Electronically Filed Documents, specifies that:

13

Moreover, Civil Local Rule 5-1(h)(1), Service of

Upon the filing of a document by a party, an email
message will be automatically generated by the ECF system
and sent to the registered attorneys for all parties in
the
case.
Except
for
electronically-filed
civil
complaints and case-initiating documents, which must be
served manually, receipt of this message constitutes
service on the receiving party.

14
15
16
17

Therefore, notice was immediately complete, not accomplished

18

pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), and thus never subject to

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

20

loath to deny arguments due to a technicality (such as filing an

21

objection a day late) as doing so may unfairly prejudice the

22

parties represented by counsel.

23

Plaintiff's response filed after the Court had already decided the

24

motion but not yet posted as grounds to grant reconsideration.1

25

1

26
27
28

Yet even without an extension, the Court is

The Court therefore takes the

In an ironic twist, after drafting this Order but before filing
it, the Court received a joint motion for reconsideration by
Plaintiff making arguments that their original filing was timely
and that the Court should not decide a merits issue on the basis of
a technicality. ECF No. 31. Per the above, the Court disagrees
that the original opposition was timely but grants reconsideration.

2

However, upon reconsideration, the Court upholds its existing

1

are related to each other.

4

that while related to each other, the three other cases are not

5

related to the instant case.

6

correctly cites that certain specific defendants are different,

7

that the legal basis is slightly different, and that the timeframe

8

United States District Court

Order.

3

For the Northern District of California

2

All parties and the Court agree that the three other cases

is slightly different.

The crux of Plaintiff's argument is

In support thereof, Plaintiff

The Court finds this unpersuasive.

9

The defendants cited in

10

the related cases are different to the extent necessary to capture

11

those involved in a slightly earlier stage of the company's

12

existence during the Initial Public offering ("IPO").

13

of the Securities Act of 1933 are 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 in the

14

related actions and 10(b) and 20(a) in this action due to that same

15

difference in stage.

16

is the IPO in June 12, 2014 versus misstatements made in February

17

2015 discovered to be false (and thus impacting stock) in April

18

2015.

19

Defendants' argument more than Plaintiffs' argument.

20

Defendants have no answer to the core of these claims:

21

are allegedly engaging in a repeated pattern of obfuscating

22

critical facts the public needed to know when making purchase of

23

its stock.

24

whether the instant action and other three actions are indeed

25

substantially the same parties and transactions, per Local Civil

26

Rule 3-12.

27

to one (set of) case(s) would be of interest and likely to be

28

implicated in discovery with respect to the other case(s).

The Sections

The timeframe at issue in the related cases

These facts could cut either way, and indeed tend to favor
However,
Defendants

The Court could easily find either way with respect to

But the Court harbors no doubt that information related

3

1

The Court also notes that this decision poses little harm to

2

the Defendants.

3

duplicative labor or expense given (a) the differences in the cases

4

and (b) that removal was in error.

5

former (per its analysis above) and notes that if removal truly was

6

improper -- a matter the Court in no way reaches here -- there will

7

be no prejudice to Defendants when these cases are remanded.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

Defendants argue that there is little risk of

The Court disagrees with the

Accordingly, upon reconsideration, the Order of the Court
dated October 1, 2015, ECF No. 30, stands.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

5
Dated: October __, 2015

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

4