In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 eeCuRtee UINGANION Case No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 8 9 Re: ECF No. 229 10 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 5 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. 3 15 The Court holds that it is without jurisdiction to consider Intervenors’ motion. “An appeal, a 16 || including an interlocutory appeal, ‘divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the 3 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 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Intervenors’ motion to intervene without prejudice to 23 refiling of the motion upon resolution of the pending appeal. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 31, 2023 26 EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 Case No.: 5:18-cv-03509-EJD ORDER DEN. MOT. TO INTERVENE WITHOUT PREJUDICE