`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`IN RE ZOOM SECURITIES
`LITIGATION.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-02353-JD
`
`
`ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Drieu v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (No. 20-cv-02353-JD) and Brams v. Zoom
`
`Video Communications, Inc. (No. 20-cv-02396-JD) are related putative class actions with
`
`substantially similar allegations of securities fraud against Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and
`
`two of its officers. The cases involve common questions of law and fact. Consequently, as has
`
`been requested without opposition, the cases are consolidated for all purposes, including trial.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
`
`The cases are consolidated into the lowest-numbered case, No. 20-cv-02353-JD, which is
`
`re-captioned as In re Zoom Securities Litigation. All filings must be made in that case. The other
`
`case will be closed.
`
`If a related action is subsequently filed in or transferred to this District, it will be
`
`consolidated into this action for all purposes. This order will apply to every subsequently related
`
`action without a further order of the Court. A party that objects to consolidation, or to any other
`
`provision of this order, must file an application for relief from this order within ten (10) days after
`
`the date on which the party’s counsel receives a copy of the order.
`
`The parties must file a Notice of Related Cases pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12
`
`whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02396-JD Document 15 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`District. If the Court determines that the case is related, the Clerk of the Court will:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`file a copy of this order in the separate file for such action;
`
`serve on plaintiff’s counsel in the new case a copy of this order;
`
`c. direct that this order be served upon defendants in the new case; and
`
`d. make the appropriate entry in the master docket sheet (No. 20-cv-02353-JD).
`
`If there are any disputes about whether a new action should be related to this consolidated
`
`action, they must promptly be brought to the Court’s attention or any objection may be deemed
`
`waived.
`
`Pending appointment of a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
`
`(“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and the filing of a consolidated amended complaint,
`
`defendants do not need to respond to the current complaint. Defendants are not deemed to have
`
`waived any defenses available to them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other
`
`statute or common law.
`
`Counsel are directed to file by May 29, 2020, a proposed schedule for appointment of lead
`
`plaintiff, the filing of the consolidated complaint, and motion to dismiss briefing.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
