Robb v. Fitbit Inc. et al

Filing 249

ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/22/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE FITBIT, INC. SHAREHOLDER

8

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

9

Case Nos. 16-cv-06558-SI
17-cv-03677-SI
18-cv-07103-SI
ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CLOSING

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This is a consolidated shareholder derivative action consisting of: Blackburn v. Park, Case

14

No. 16-cv-6558 (filed Nov. 11, 2016); Wong v. Park, Case No. 17-cv-3677 (filed June 27, 2017);

15

and Dua v. Park, Case No. 18-cv-7103 (filed Nov. 21, 2018). This action has been effectively stayed

16

since January 2017, first pending resolution of the federal securities class action, Robb v. Fitbit,

17

Case No. 16-cv-151. See Docket No. 13.1 The Court granted final approval of the federal securities

18

class action settlement in April 2018. Case No. 16-cv-151, Docket No. 234. The parties then

19

requested a further stay, which the Court granted, citing related derivative actions consolidated in

20

the Delaware Court of Chancery.2 Docket No. 27. The parties asked that the Court stay this action

21
22
23
24
25

pending the Delaware Court of Chancery’s ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss. Id. After the
Court of Chancery denied the motions to dismiss, the parties requested, and this Court granted, a
stay pending a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on Fitbit’s application for certification of
interlocutory appeal. Docket No. 35.
The parties represent that “on January 30, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an

26

1

27

2

28

Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the docket refer to Case No. 16-cv-6558.

The parties noted that a related derivative action pending in the District of Delaware had
been stayed and administratively closed pending resolution of the federal securities class action.
Case No. 16-v-6558, Docket No. 27 at 2.

1

Order refusing Fitbit’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal” of the Chancery

2

Court’s opinion denying defendants’ motions to dismiss. Docket No. 36 at 3. The parties now ask

3

this Court to continue to stay this case “while the Individual Defendants retain separate counsel and

4

the parties discuss next steps in the litigation.” Id.
Due to the prolonged inactivity of this federal case, and the successive requests to stay the

6

case, this Court hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSES this case and shall retain jurisdiction.

7

Counsel may move to reopen the action and lift the stay upon the conclusion of the proceedings in

8

the Chancery Court or upon a showing of other good cause. By administratively closing the case,

9

the Court finds that the parties’ rights shall not be prejudiced in any way and that the parties do not

10

waive and expressly reserve the right to assert any of their respective claims and defenses that they

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

or any of them may have, including, but not limited to, defenses as to forum, venue, or jurisdiction.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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