John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-9374 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019 Title John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson, et al. Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Cheryl Wynn None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation of Actions On October 31, 2019, plaintiff John Mitchell (“plaintiff Mitchell”) filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of Inogen, Inc. (“Inogen”) against various of Inogen’s corporate officers (collectively, “defendants”). (See John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson, etal., Case No. CV 19- 9374 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Mitchell”), Dkt. 1, “Mitchell Complaint” at J 1, 13-28). Plaintiff Mitchell alleges claims for violation of § 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and insider trading. (See Dkt 1, Mitchell Complaint at [| 140-62). Plaintiff Mitchell's claims arise from allegations that defendants misled investors about the reasons for Inogen’s initial financial success, exaggerated the size of the market for the company’s products as well as its growth potential, and failed to disclose material information about the company. (See id. at {| 2-8). Within weeks or months of the filing of plaintiff Mitchell’s complaint, several other Inogen shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against the company’s corporate officers, alleging violations some of which overlap with those of plaintiff Mitchell, and making similar factual allegations. (See, generally, Twana Brown v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-5568 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Brown”), Dkt. 1, “Brown Complaint’; Haitham Saeed v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19- 8634 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Saeed”), Dkt. 1, “Saeed Complaint’; Carole Butcher v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-8685 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Butcher”), Dkt. 1, “Butcher Complaint”). “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may... consolidate the actions[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). “A district court generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions[.]” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED that by no later than December 20, 2019, the parties shall file either a stipulation or response, not to exceed five pages, to show cause why the Saeed, Brown, Butcher, and Mitchell actions should not be consolidated. Initials of Preparer cw