Cahoj v. Natera, Inc. et al
Filing
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RELATE CASES docket no. 10 on case no. 16-cv-1460-HSG ); DENYING STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE (docket no. 11 on case no. 16-1460-HSG); SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON REMAND MOTIONS. Deadlines/Hearing terminated and Reset. 7 MOTION to Remand : Responses due by 4/20/2016; Replies due by 5/4/2016;. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/20/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
v.
NATERA, INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Defendants.
MIKA CAHOJ,
13
14
15
20
21
Dkt. Nos. 10, 11
Case No. 16-cv-01512-HSG
v.
NATERA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
M. JIM ELLIS,
18
19
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES; DENYING
STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; SETTING
BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE
ON REMAND MOTIONS
Plaintiff,
16
17
Case No. 16-cv-01460-HSG
Case No. 16-cv-01554-CW
Plaintiff,
v.
NATERA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
22
23
On April 12, 2016, Defendants Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman,
24
Jonathan Sheena, Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C. Driscoll, Jr., James I. Healy, and
25
John Steuart (together, “Defendants”) filed a motion to relate the three above-captioned putative
26
securities class actions on the docket of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v.
27
Natera, Inc., No. 16-cv-01460. Dkt. No. 10. Later that same day, all of the parties to all three
28
actions filed on the same docket a stipulation and proposed order to consolidate the actions for all
1
purposes. Dkt. No. 11. The parties represent that the cases “involve substantially the same
2
parties, claims, set of facts, and form of relief.” Dkt. No. 10 at 3.
3
The Court finds the cases related within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 7-11(a), and
4
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to relate (Dkt. No. 10). Accordingly, the matter of Ellis v. Natera,
5
Inc., Case No. 16-cv-1554-CW, shall be reassigned to this Court. The parties are instructed that
6
all future filings in that case must bear the initials “HSG” immediately after the case number. The
7
parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures, and report required by Federal Rules
8
of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 as appropriate. Any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in
9
effect. The Court VACATES all other previously-set hearing dates in that case (as well as the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
other two cases), including the date set for the initial case management conference.
The Court further ORDERS that the parties in all cases to complete briefing on Plaintiffs’
12
remand motions on the schedule agreed to by the parties in the proposed stipulation to consolidate:
13
Defendants’ response is due by April 20, 2016, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due by May 4, 2016. The
14
Court will hear argument on all of the motions to remand on May 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.
15
Additionally, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ stipulation to
16
consolidate these actions and appoint lead counsel (Dkt. No. 11). The stipulation does not track
17
this District’s Model Stipulation and Proposed Consolidation Order or explain why it does not
18
follow that form. See Civ. L.R. 23-1. Moreover, the parties have not identified any authority
19
suggesting that it is appropriate for the Court to appoint lead counsel based on a stipulation. The
20
Local Rules contemplate a motion (whether opposed or not) to appoint a lead plaintiff, from which
21
the appointment of lead counsel then follows. See id. The parties should be prepared to address
22
these issues at the May 12 hearing, and to discuss why they believe it would be appropriate for the
23
Court to consolidate the cases before ruling on the remand motions.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2016
26
27
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?