Klein v. Ellison et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting (20) Administrative Motion to Relate in case 3:20-cv-04439-JSC. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

R. ANDRE KLEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 20-cv-04439-JSC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED
Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 24

On September 3, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’

13

administrative motion to consider whether the instant action and Sherman v. Ellison, Case No.

14

4:20-cv-05255-DMR, should be related. (Dkt. No. 23.) After careful consideration of Plaintiffs’

15

administrative motion, the Sherman Plaintiff’s opposition, and Defendants’ response, the Court

16

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion and RELATES the Klein and Sherman cases.

17

The Sherman Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to relating the cases are unpersuasive.

18

The Court finds that the Sherman Plaintiff’s initial “books and records” demand has no bearing on

19

whether the cases “concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event[.]” N.D.

20

Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1). Similarly, Sherman’s contention that the Klein case is motivated by a

21

“social justice agenda” does not meaningfully distinguish the two cases under Civil Local Rule 3-

22

12(a)(1).

23

Both actions are derivative suits that concern the same parties and are based on the same

24

factual allegations, chiefly that Director Defendants violated federal securities law and breached

25

their fiduciary duties by falsely representing a commitment to diversity. All challenged statements

26

in the Sherman action are challenged in the Klein action; the Sherman complaint challenges

27

statements in Oracle’s 2019 Proxy Statement, and the Klein complaint challenges statements in

28

Oracle’s 2018 and 2019 Proxy Statements. Therefore, the cases concern substantially the same

1
2

“parties, property, transaction[s], [and] event[s]” as required by Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(1).
Because conducting the cases between different Judges would result in an “unduly

3

burdensome duplication of labor and expense,” see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b)(2), pursuant to

4

Civil Local Rule 3-12 the Court RELATES the Klein and Sherman actions. The Court notes that

5

relating the cases does not consolidate them and does not make any particular counsel lead counsel

6

over a separate case.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 14, 2020

9
10
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2