Robb v. Fitbit Inc. et al

Filing 249

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?