Bloom et al v. SunEdison, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING (79) STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING CASES.Associated Cases: 3:16-cv-02265-WHA, 3:16-cv-04883-WHA(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Patrick D. Robbins (SBN 152288)
[e-mail]
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Adam S. Hakki (pro hac vice to be submitted)
[e-mail]
Daniel C. Lewis (pro hac vice to be submitted)
[e-mail]
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022-6069
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17
18
19

CHARLES BLOOM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SUNEDISON , INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CHARLES BLOOM, et al.,

20

Related Case No. 3:16-cv-02265-WHA
STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
CONSOLIDATING CASES
Judge: Hon. William Alsup

Related Case No. 3:16-cv-04883-WHA
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23

vs.
GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al.,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the parties in the abovecaptioned related actions entitled Bloom, et al. v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02265WHA (“Bloom I”) and Bloom, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-04883-WHA
(“Bloom II” and, together with Bloom I, the “Bloom Actions”), seek to have the Court consolidate
the Bloom Actions so that they can be promptly transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York pursuant to this Court’s Order (1) Denying Motions to Remand; (2)
Granting Motions to Transfer; (3) Certifying Issue for Interlocutory Review; and (4) Staying
Actions, dated August 26, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Bloom Actions have the same plaintiffs, were filed by the same counsel, and
include allegations that plaintiffs purchased the same security and were misled by misrepresentations
and/or omissions in certain offering materials concerning the strength and liquidity of SunEdison,
Inc. during the same general time period; and
WHEREAS, prior to Defendants’ removal of Bloom II: (i) the defendants in Bloom I and
three other actions deemed related thereto (collectively, the “Related Actions”) moved pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1412 to transfer the Related Actions to the Southern District of New York; (ii) plaintiffs
in each of the Related Actions moved to remand the Related Actions to San Mateo County Superior
Court; and (iii) the parties’ motions for remand and transfer were fully briefed and the Court held a
hearing to consider those motions;
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2016, in the Related Actions, the Hon. William H. Alsup entered
an order: (i) denying plaintiffs’ motions to remand the Related Actions, (ii) granting defendants’
motions to transfer the Related Actions, (iii) certifying for interlocutory review the question of
whether Section 22(a) of the 1933 Securities Act bars removal of actions “related to” a bankruptcy
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a); and (iv) staying the Related Actions until September 5, 2016,
unless plaintiffs file a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), in which case the Related Actions
are stayed until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit acts upon any such petition;
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the Bloom Actions did not file a petition seeking interlocutory
review of the Court’s August 26, 2016 order as to Bloom I;

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

1
2
3

WHEREAS, the parties in the Bloom Actions agree to be bound by the Court’s August 26,
2016 order as to Bloom II without requiring the parties to separately brief motions to remand and
transfer; and

4
5
6
7
8

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Plaintiffs in the Bloom Actions reserve and have not
waived their right to argue in Bloom I and Bloom II that the Southern District of New York lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case in the event that the Ninth Circuit reverses this Court’s
August 26, 2016 order and that the Defendants reserve and have not waived their right to oppose
such arguments.

9
10

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the
undersigned attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

11
12
13
14

1.

The above-captioned Bloom Actions are hereby consolidated before the undersigned

2.

The Bloom Actions shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Judge.

Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated: September 21, 2016

By:

/s/ Patrick D. Robbins
Patrick D. Robbins, SBN 152288
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

26

Adam S. Hakki (pro hac vice to be submitted)
Daniel C. Lewis (pro hac vice to be submitted)
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

27

Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

22
23
24
25

28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

1
2

Dated: September 21, 2016

3
4
5
6

By: _/s/ John T. Jasnoch_____________________
John T. Jasnoch, SBN 281605
SCOTT+SCOTT, attorneys at law, LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
619/233-0508 (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
8
9

Dated: September 21, 2016

10
11
12
13
14

By: /s/ Jie (Lisa) Li
Jie (Lisa) Li (State Bar No. 260474)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Blackmore

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dated: September 21, 2016

By: /s/ Sara B/ Brody
Sara B. Brody (State Bar No. 130222)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Ahmad Chatila,
Jeremy Avenier, Martin Truong,
Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez,
Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor,
Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, Randy
Zwirn, and Brian Wuebbels

26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA

1
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

2
3

I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing

4

document. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of

5

this document has been obtained from each signatory.

6

Dated: September 21, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

7
By:

8

/s/ Patrick D. Robbins
Patrick D. Robbins, SBN 152288
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
535 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12

Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants

13
14
*

*

*

15
[PROPOSED] ORDER

16
17

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED:

19

September 21, 2016.
William H. Alsup
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
RELATED CASES NOS. 3:16-CV-2265-WHA AND 3:16-CV-04883-WHA