Weston v. PG&E Corporation et al

Filing 254

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 229 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/31/2023. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2023)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

IN RE PG&E CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
INTERVENE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

7
8

Re: ECF No. 229

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the Court is a motion to intervene by approximately 700 putative class members

12

(“Intervenors”). Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 229. They seek to intervene in order to oppose any

13

efforts by the parties to dissolve the stay that the Court entered on September 30, 2022 (ECF No.

14

217) and/or any forthcoming motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Mot. to Intervene 1.

15

The Court holds that it is without jurisdiction to consider Intervenors’ motion. “An appeal,

16

including an interlocutory appeal, ‘divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the

17

case involved in the appeal.’” Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915, 1919 (2023) (quoting

18

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). And on October 31, 2022,

19

named plaintiffs in this action appealed the Court’s stay order. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 218.

20

Because the stay is “involved in the appeal,” the Court is without power to address the motion to

21

intervene to preserve the stay.

22
23
24
25

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Intervenors’ motion to intervene without prejudice to
refiling of the motion upon resolution of the pending appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2023

26
27
28

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
Case No.: 5:18-cv-03509-EJD
ORDER DEN. MOT. TO INTERVENE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1