Roy v. Ittycheria
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-07594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roy v. Ittycheria, Judge Woods granted in part the parties’ request and stayed the case pending a related action’s anticipated dismissal motion.
The stay affects Anand Roy, MongoDB, Inc., and the individual defendants by pausing the case’s deadlines, including MongoDB’s deadline to respond to the complaint, pending the anticipated motion to dismiss in the related Baxter action.
What happened
Roy v. Ittycheria is a putative shareholder-derivative action brought by Anand Roy on behalf of MongoDB, Inc. against MongoDB and individual defendants who are current or former MongoDB officers and directors. The parties said the claims resembled those in a related securities case, Baxter v. MongoDB Inc., also pending before the court.
The parties jointly asked the court to stay all deadlines in Roy, including the defendants’ time to respond to the complaint, until the court ruled on an anticipated motion to dismiss in Baxter. They said that ruling could affect whether Roy proceeds and could avoid unnecessary motion practice.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the request in part. He ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the anticipated motion to dismiss in Baxter, but took no position on the remaining provisions of the proposed stipulation and order. The clerk was directed to record the stay on the docket and terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Roy v. Ittycheria · No. 1:24-cv-07594
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 25, 2024
Background
Anand Roy brought a putative derivative action seeking to assert claims on behalf of nominal defendant MongoDB, Inc. against individual defendants who the opinion identifies as current and former officers and directors of MongoDB. The parties said the claims were based on allegations similar to those in a related putative federal securities class action, Baxter v. MongoDB Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-05191, pending before the same court.
MongoDB had been served with the complaint, and its deadline to respond was October 29, 2024. The other defendants had not yet been served, although they agreed to accept service under the proposed stipulation. The parties anticipated that the defendants would move to dismiss Baxter after the court addressed the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and any amended complaint in that action. They also anticipated a possible motion to dismiss Roy under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 23.1, including arguments concerning pre-suit demand and demand futility. The opinion says Roy would oppose such a motion.
Request
The parties jointly asked the court to enter a stipulation and proposed order staying Roy. The proposed stay would pause all existing deadlines, including the defendants’ time to respond to the complaint, until the court resolved the anticipated motion to dismiss in Baxter. They argued that the result in Baxter would inform whether Roy proceeded and would promote judicial efficiency by avoiding unnecessary motion practice.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted in part the parties’ request to enter the stipulation and proposed order. He ordered that Roy be stayed pending the outcome of the anticipated motion to dismiss in Baxter. The court took no position regarding the remaining provisions of the stipulation and proposed order. The clerk was directed to note the stay on the docket and terminate the pending motion.
The court did not rule on the anticipated motions to dismiss, the demand-related issues, or the underlying claims. The order therefore addressed case management rather than the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.