Cobalt Partners, LP, et al v. SunEdison, Inc. et al

Filing 144

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE REGARDING COORDINATION OF CASES. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/9/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

COBALT PARTNERS, LP, COBALT
PARTNERS II, LP, COBALT OFFSHORE
MASTER FUND, LP AND COBALT KC
PARTNERS, LP,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.

Related Cases:

SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA, BRIAN
WUEBBELS, MARTIN TRUONG, ALEJANDRO
HERNANDEZ, EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ,
ANTONIO R. ALVAREZ, PETER BLACKMORE,
CLAYTON DALEY JR., GEORGANNE
PROCTOR, STEVEN TESORIERE, JAMES B.
WILLIAMS, RANDY H. ZWIRN, GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., MACQUARIE CAPITAL
(USA), INC., MCS CAPITAL MARKETS LLC and
DOES 1- 25, inclusive,

No. 16-cv-02264-WHA
No. 16-cv-02265-WHA
No. 16-cv-02268-WHA
No. 16-cv-04883-WHA

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
REGARDING COORDINATION
OF CASES

Defendants.
/

23
24

No. C 16-02263 WHA

AND RELATED CASES.
/

25
26

On August 26, 2016, an order denied motions to remand as to four of the related cases

27

and certified an issue for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (see Case No. 16-02265,

28

Dkt. No. 73). Plaintiffs in Cobalt, Glenview, and Omega subsequently filed petitions for

1

interlocutory review pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1292. Plaintiffs in the Bloom class action did not file a

2

petition for interlocutory review.

3
4
5

On September 7, 2016, an order related a fifth action, Bloom II (Case No.
16-cv-04883-WHA) to these actions.
This order requests responses from the parties regarding the following question: to what

6

extent should the Bloom class action (Case No. C 16-02265 WHA) and the newly-related class

7

action (Case No. 16-cv-04883-WHA), Bloom II, be stayed pending such time as our court of

8

appeals acts upon the pending petitions for interlocutory review? BY SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 AT

9

NOON, the parties may submit briefs of no more than five pages responding to this question.
The Court asks the parties to consolidate briefs where appropriate and avoid submitting

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

duplicative briefs.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: September 9, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2