Marko Jurkovic v. Rajeev Goel, et al.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:25-cv-07224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Jurkovic v. Goel: Judge Corley granted defendants’ unopposed motion to consolidate two related PubMatic shareholder lawsuits.
Marko Jurkovic, the defendants, and PubMatic, Inc.; the two related shareholder derivative actions will be consolidated.
What happened
In Marko Jurkovic v. Rajeev Goel, et al., Marko Jurkovic brought a shareholder lawsuit on behalf of PubMatic, Inc., alleging that company employees made false or misleading statements about demand for the company’s services.
Defendants asked the court to combine the case with another shareholder lawsuit involving PubMatic, the same defendants, and the same statements. The motion was unopposed.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the motion under the rule allowing courts to consolidate cases with common legal or factual questions. The court stated that combining the cases would save significant time and effort, and the order disposed of Docket No. 16.
The detailed version
- Marko Jurkovic v. Rajeev Goel, et al. · No. 3:25-cv-07224
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 16, 2026
Background
Marko Jurkovic brought a shareholder derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant PubMatic, Inc. He alleged that the company’s high-level employees made false and misleading statements about demand for PubMatic’s services.
Defendants moved to consolidate this case with another shareholder derivative action on behalf of PubMatic involving the same defendants and arising from the same statements. The opinion states that the motion was unopposed.
Ruling
The court granted defendants’ motion to consolidate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation when cases involve a common question of law or fact. The court found that the rule’s requirements were met because the plaintiffs in both cases alleged the same false or misleading statements, and that consolidation would save significant time and effort. The order disposed of Docket No. 16.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management ruling combining related lawsuits. The opinion did not decide whether the statements were false or misleading or otherwise resolve the shareholder claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.