IN RE INTEL CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
Filing
67
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE re 52 Objection, and 50 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Court APPROVES the federal-case plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal of the federal case. The federal case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/24/19. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2019)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
CASE NO. 18-cv-01489-YGR
7
IN RE INTEL CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
8
9
10
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 52
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The issue presented concerns the application of the two-dismissal rule under Federal Rule
13
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) to consolidated derivative actions. Here, in response to plaintiffs’
14
(“federal-case plaintiffs”) notice of voluntary dismissal of the above-captioned case (the “federal
15
case”) without prejudice, (Dkt. No. 50 (“Notice”)), defendants and nominal defendant (together,
16
“federal-case defendants”) request that the Court order the dismissal to be with prejudice.
17
Federal-case plaintiffs and intervenor Joseph Tola, on behalf of the plaintiffs in a related state
18
court action, In re Intel Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case. No. 18-CIV-00170
19
(San Mateo Cty. – Cal. Sup. Ct.) (“state-case plaintiffs”), oppose the request. (Dkt. No. 54
20
(“Federal-Case Plaintiffs’ Opp.”); Dkt. No. 64 (“State-Case Plaintiffs’ Opp.”).) Having
21
considered the respective positions, the Court finds that the two-dismissal rule does not apply
22
here. The Court hereby APPROVES federal-case plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal of the
23
federal case. The federal case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
24
I.
BACKGROUND
25
Numerous and similar shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of Intel
26
Corporation (“Intel”) in both state and federal courts arising from certain security vulnerabilities
27
affecting Intel chips. In state court, the first shareholder derivative complaint was filed on January
28
11, 2018, and in federal court, the first such complaint was filed on March 8, 2018. State-case
1
plaintiffs assert claims against certain officers and directors of Intel for, inter alia, breach of
2
fiduciary duty, insider trading, and violations of California Corporations Code section 25402.
3
(See generally Exh. 1 to Declaration of Mark C. Molumphy ISO State-Case Plaintiffs’ Motion to
4
Intervene, Dkt. No. 58-2.) Federal-case plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste
5
of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, also against certain of Intel’s officers and directors.
6
(See generally Dkt. No. 1-1.)
7
In terms of consolidation, the first state shareholder derivative action was subsequently
8
consolidated with two other state shareholder derivative actions. Meanwhile, in federal court,
9
Lipovich v. Krzanich, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01489-JSW (the “Lipovich Action”) and Salsberg v.
Krzanich, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01543-WHA (the “Salsberg Action”) were filed on March 8,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
2018 and March 12, 2018, respectively. By stipulation of the parties and a court order dated
12
March 30, 2018, the Lipovich Action and the Salsberg Action were consolidated “for all purposes,
13
including pre-trial proceedings and trial, into a single consolidated action” (the “Consolidated
14
Action”), and the complaint in the Lipovich Action was designated the operative complaint in the
15
Consolidated Action (the “Operative Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 21 at 1.) The third related federal
16
action, Birch et al. v. Krzanich, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02051-JSW (the “Birch Action”), was filed
17
on April 4, 2018. By stipulation of the parties to the Consolidated Action and to the Birch Action
18
and a court order dated May 9, 2018, the latter was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.
19
(See Dkt. No. 29.) Shortly thereafter, the Birch Action was dismissed but subject to the Operative
20
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 37 (“Order Dismissing Birch Action”).)
21
On August 8, 2018, this Court granted, with leave to amend, a motion to dismiss the
22
Operative Complaint for failure to plead demand futility. (Dkt. No. 44.) On September 14, 2018,
23
in lieu of an amended consolidated complaint, federal-case plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
24
dismissal of the federal case without prejudice. Federal-case defendants objected to the notice of
25
voluntary dismissal, arguing that the dismissal of the federal case should instead be with prejudice
26
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B). This Court subsequently ordered full
27
briefing on the issues raised in federal-case defendants’ objection. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 55.)
28
Meanwhile, a fourth state court derivative action, Lockwood v. Krzanich et al. Case No. 18-CIV2
1
02020 (San Mateo Cty. – Cal. Sup. Ct.) (the “Lockwood Action”), which had not been
2
consolidated with the other state derivative actions, was ultimately dismissed on September 26,
3
2018. (See Exh. 1 to Declaration of Robert L. Dell Angelo ISO Federal-Case Defendants’
4
Response to State-Case Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Dismissal With Prejudice, Dkt. No. 65-2.)
5
On October 2, 2018, the day after briefing was complete, state-case plaintiffs filed a
6
motion to intervene in this federal case for the sole purpose of filing a limited opposition to
7
federal-case defendants’ request for dismissal with prejudice of the federal case. The Court
8
granted the motion, allowing state-case plaintiffs to intervene as of right pursuant to Federal Rule
9
of Civil Procedure 24(a), and specified that the grant did not extend to any attempt to seek
affirmative relief, such as a stay of the federal case.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
II.
12
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a
13
court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves either an answer or a motion
14
for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Unless the notice or stipulation states
15
otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, “if the
16
plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same
17
claim, a [second] notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” See id. This is
18
often referred to as the “two[-]dismissal” rule. See Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing
19
Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1075 (9th Cir. 1999). The policy behind the two-dismissal rule is to
20
“‘eliminate the annoying of a defendant by being summoned into court in successive actions and
21
then, if no settlement is arrived, requiring him to permit the action to be dismissed and another one
22
commenced at leisure.’” Pickman v. Am. Express Co., No. C 11-05326 WHA, 2012 WL 258842,
23
at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 397
24
(1990)).
25
Rule 41(a)(1) is “[s]ubject to” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(c), which governs
26
settlements, dismissals, and compromises in shareholder derivative actions. That rule in turn
27
provides that a derivative action “may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with
28
the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1(c). Moreover, “[n]otice of a proposed settlement,
3
1
voluntary dismissal, or compromise must be given to shareholders or members in the manner that
2
the court orders.” Id.
3
III.
4
DISCUSSION
Federal-case defendants’ principal contention is that, under the two-dismissal rule, federal-
5
case plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal operates as an “adjudication on the merits” under
6
Rule 41(a)(1)(B). Thus, they argue, the Court should “enter the dismissal with prejudice, to
7
reflect its legal effect.” (Objection to Dismissal Without Prejudice and Request for Dismissal
8
With Prejudice (“Federal-Case Defendants’ Objection”) at 4, Dkt. No. 52 (emphasis in original).)
9
In the normal course, the determination of whether a plaintiff’s notice of dismissal in a
second action is with prejudice falls within the province of the court in a third action because the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
plaintiff’s notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) deprives the court in the second action of
12
jurisdiction upon filing and no court order is needed to effect dismissal. See Commercial Space,
13
193 F.3d at 1077 (“Because the dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required, the
14
filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the
15
defendants who are the subject of the notice. . . . [T]he parties are left as though no action had
16
been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything
17
about it.”). But because this is a shareholder derivative suit, federal-case plaintiffs’ voluntary
18
dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is “[s]ubject to Rule[] . . . 23.1(c),” which expressly requires a court
19
order for dismissal to be effective.1 This requirement provides this Court with jurisdiction to
20
decide whether dismissal of the federal case without prejudice is appropriate. Federal-case
21
plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary fails, and the Court finds that the instant notice of voluntary
22
dismissal does not require application of the two-dismissal rule.2
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
State-case plaintiffs’ contention that the two-dismissal rule does not apply to any
shareholder derivative action is unsupported by legal authority. Under certain circumstances not
present here, it may.
2
While the Court can appreciate federal-case defendants’ alternative argument that
“[federal-case] [p]laintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice only in an effort to avoid the finality
implications of their inability to allege demand futility and successfully amend their complaint[,]”
the lack of merit is not a reason to create a procedural rule which would do more harm than good.
(Federal-Case Defendants’ Objection at 5 (emphasis in original).)
4
Federal-case defendants first argue for a straightforward application of the rule, contending
1
2
that the instant dismissal was “preceded” by two other voluntary dismissals, thus requiring
3
dismissal with prejudice of the federal case. (Dkt. No. 65 at 1.) First, they focus on the dismissal
4
of the Birch Action. Specifically, on June 13, 2018, the Birch plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
5
dismissal, which this Court approved the following day. This was not a traditional dismissal under
6
Rule 41(a)(1) as the Birch Action had previously been consolidated with the Lipovich Action and
7
the Salsberg Action. Thus, the effect of the dismissal was only to dismiss the Birch plaintiffs from
8
the Consolidated Action. Indeed, the Court’s order specified: “[T]he dismissal of the Birch
9
Action will not terminate the claims. Instead, the claims will continue to be litigated by the
remaining parties to the above-captioned consolidated action.” (Order Dismissing Birch Action at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
1.) In this context, the policy behind the two-dismissal rule is not promoted, given that in such
12
derivative actions multiple complaints are consolidated for all purposes to proceed under one. To
13
find otherwise would effectively create an unnecessary procedural barrier to consolidation, and
14
federal-case defendants have cited no authority to the contrary.
Next, federal-case defendants seize on the dismissal of the Lockwood Action on September
15
16
26, 2018. However, that dismissal succeeded the instant dismissal by twelve days. The Court
17
finds persuasive authority for the proposition that a dismissal in state court may be considered for
18
Rule 41 purposes only when the state dismissal precedes a dismissal in federal court, as only the
19
dismissal in federal court can be an adjudication on the merits. See Rader v. Baltimore & O.R.
20
Co., 108 F.2d 980, 986 (7th Cir. 1940); see also 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
21
Procedure § 2368 (3d ed.) (“The ‘two-dismissal rule’ applies in federal court actions whether the
22
first dismissal was in a state or a federal court. It does not apply, however, if the second dismissal
23
was in a state court.”) (footnotes omitted).
With respect to the notice requirement under Rule 23.1, the Court is satisfied that none of
24
25
the reasons which underlie the requirement is operative here. There is no risk of prejudice to Intel
26
or absent shareholders if notice is not given. Accordingly, notice is excused.
27
IV.
28
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the two-dismissal rule is inapplicable here.
5
1
The Court thus APPROVES federal-case plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal of the federal case.
2
The federal case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3
This Order terminates Docket Number 51. The clerk shall close the file.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: January 24, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
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
6
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?