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)

Download PDF
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?