Ocegueda v. Zuckerberg

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 San Francisco Division 1] NATALIE OCEGUEDA, derivatively on Case No. 20-cv-04444-LB behalf of Facebook, 12 . . Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO □ ENLARGE TIME . 14 Re: ECF No. 66 5 MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Oo Defendants. 16

17 For the reasons stated in In re Facebook, the court denies the motion because the plaintiff has n

18 established that the court should lift the PSLRA stay. Jn re Facebook, Inc. S’holder Derivative Liti; 19 411 F. Supp. 3d 649, 652-54 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019). The plaintiff’s cases are distinguishable. / 20 at 655-56 (distinguishing King v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., 12 A.3d 1140 (Del. 2011) and Oswald v. 21 Humphreys, No. C 16-00241 CRB, 2016 WL 6582025 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)). The case from th 22 Central District did not address the Facebook decision and has a distinguishable context. 23 This disposes of ECF No. 66. 25 Dated: April 16, 2021 LAUREL BEELER 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28