Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 14, 2026

In re: Enovix Corporation Securities Litigation

Judge
Susan Illston
Docket
3:23-cv-00071
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1

Counsel40 of record
PLAINTIFF
Rolnick Kramer Securities Litigation LLPLLP4 attorneys
Marc B. Kramer, Lawrence M. Rolnick, Nicole Castiglione
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.PA3 attorneys
Joshua E. Baker, Laurence Matthew Rosen, Phillip C. Kim
Block & Leviton LLPLLP2 attorneys
Jacob Allen Walker, Jeffrey C. Block
Anna Menkova
Sawyer & Labar LLPLLP
Adrian Sawyer
MOVANT
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLPLLP3 attorneys
Danielle Suzanne Myers, Kenneth P. Dolitsky, Shawn A. Williams
Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLPLLP
Charles Henry Linehan
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLPLLP
Juan Carlos Sanchez
Pomerantz LLPLLP
Jennifer Pafiti
Levi & Korsinsky, LLPLLP
Adam Marc Apton
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLPLLP
Jennifer Lauren Joost
Block & Leviton LLPLLP
Jacob Allen Walker
CONSOL PLAINTIFF
Jennifer Pafiti Pomerantz LLP
CONSOL DEFENDANT
Brett De Jarnette Cooley LLP
Shannon Eagan Cooley LLP
Andrew John Rossman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Emily C. Kapur Quinn Emanuel
Sam Blankenship Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Sarah Malke Lightdale Latham & Watkins LLP
DEFENDANT
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLPLLP6 attorneys
Andrew John Rossman, Brenna D. Nelinson, Courtney Christine Whang
Cooley LLPLLP3 attorneys
Amie Lea Simmons, Brett De Jarnette, Shannon Eagan
Quinn Emanuel
Emily C. Kapur
Latham & Watkins LLPLLP
Sarah Malke Lightdale
Sasha Boutilier
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLPLLP
Sam Blankenship

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.

SecuritiesCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Enovix Corporation Securities Litigation, Judge Illston ordered plaintiffs to explain why Baker does not control or report how they will proceed.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, who must file either the ordered brief or a status report by August 28, 2026.

What happened

In In re: Enovix Corporation Securities Litigation, the court acted after the parties filed a joint letter on July 1, 2026, and held a status conference on July 31, 2026.

The court stated that Microsoft Corp. v. Baker controls and ordered the plaintiffs to choose between a brief of up to ten pages explaining why Baker does not apply or a status report describing how they intend to proceed. The filing is due August 28, 2026.

Judge Susan Illston signed the order on August 14, 2026. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying securities claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re: Enovix Corporation Securities Litigation · No. 3:23-cv-00071
Judge
Susan Illston
Date
Aug. 14, 2026

Background

After the parties submitted a joint letter on July 1, 2026, and the court held a status conference on July 31, 2026, the court stated that Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017), controls. The court also stated that the plaintiffs’ available next steps are those described in Baker at page 34.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file one of two documents by August 28, 2026: either a brief of no more than ten pages explaining why Baker does not control, or a status report explaining how the plaintiffs intend to proceed.

Effect

This order directs the plaintiffs to make a filing concerning the effect of Baker and their intended next steps. The opinion does not state a ruling on the underlying securities claims or otherwise describe a final disposition of the litigation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.