Coffey v. Thomas
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:25-cv-02242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coffey v. Thomas, Judge Schofield set leadership-motion deadlines and paused defendants’ responses in the related derivative actions.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Coffey v. Thomas and Figurella v. Thomas are affected by the leadership-motion schedule and the delay in defendants’ responses. The securities class action is also affected administratively because the order must be docketed there; its plaintiffs took no position on the derivative-action issues.
What happened
Coffey v. Thomas is one of two related derivative actions connected to a separate securities class action. The parties agreed that the derivative actions should not be combined with the class action and proposed coordinating their next steps.
The parties also agreed that the two derivative actions should be combined, that plaintiffs would file leadership motions on May 1, 2025, and that responses and replies would be due May 15 and May 29. The opinion does not identify the defendants by name.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the plaintiffs in the two derivative actions to follow those filing deadlines. She also ordered that the defendants do not need to answer, challenge, or otherwise respond to the complaints until the court enters an order addressing further proceedings, and directed the Clerk to docket the order in all three cases.
The detailed version
- Coffey v. Thomas · No. 1:25-cv-02242
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
The court received a joint submission concerning three related cases: Coffey v. Thomas, et al., No. 1:25-cv-02242; Figurella v. Thomas, et al., No. 1:25-cv-02513; and In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-06132. The first two cases were described as related derivative actions, while the third was described as a securities class action.
The parties in the derivative actions agreed that those actions should not be consolidated with the securities class action. They also agreed that the two derivative actions should be consolidated, that motions concerning leadership in the anticipated consolidated derivative action would be filed on May 1, 2025, and that responses and replies would be filed on May 15 and May 29. Within 30 days after the court ruled on those motions, the parties agreed to submit a joint proposal concerning further proceedings. The defendants also agreed that they would not need to answer, challenge, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the derivative actions until after the court entered an order concerning further proceedings.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs in case numbers 25-cv-02242 and 25-cv-02513 to file leadership motions by May 1, 2025. Responses were due May 15, and replies were due May 29. The parties were ordered to submit a joint proposal about further proceedings within 30 days after the court ruled on the leadership motions. The court also ordered that the defendants need not answer, challenge, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the related derivative actions until after the court entered an order concerning further proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to docket the order in all three referenced cases.
The order sets the schedule and temporarily delays responses to the complaints. Although the parties’ submission said that the two derivative actions should be consolidated, the operative order reproduced in the opinion does not separately state that consolidation was ordered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.