Silva v. Sayer

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01645
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 NATHAN C. SILVA, derivatively on Case Nos.: 24-cv-1645-RSH-VET behalf of DEXCOM, INC., 24-cv-1799-RSH-VET 9

Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL v. BRIEFING 11

KEVIN R. SAYER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 JEROME MALONE, derivatively on behalf of DEXCOM, INC., 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 KEVIN R. SAYER, et al., 21 Defendants. 22

23 24 Before the Court is a joint motion to consolidate, appoint lead co-counsel, and stay 25 proceedings filed by the Parties in Silva v. Sayer et al., 24cv1645-RSH-VET (“Silva”) 26 and Malone v. Sayer et al., 24cv1799-RSH-VET (“Malone,” collectively “Related 27 Actions”). Upon review of the joint motion, it appears that consolidation of these cases is 28 appropriate. The Parties have not, however, submitted any argument or legal authority 1 ||supporting their requests to appoint lead co-counsel or stay the proceedings. Absent any 2 ||meaningful analysis on these issues, the Court will not grant the motion. 3 For these reasons, the Court DIRECTS the Parties to submit a joint brief: 4 ||(1) addressing the propriety of appointing the multiple firms as co-lead counsel in a 5 consolidated shareholder derivative action; and (2) supporting the Parties’ request to stay, 6 ||taking into account the competing interests the Court must weigh under Ninth Circuit 7 || precedent. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The Parties’ brief 8 ||should be no more than ten pages in length and must be filed on or before November 29, 9 1/2024. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: November 14, 2024 ebut c Eb □□□□ 12 B Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28