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)

Download PDF
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

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?