Ocegueda v. Zuckerberg
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-04444
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ocegueda v. Zuckerberg, Judge Beeler denied Ocegueda’s motion to enlarge time because she did not show grounds to lift the statutory stay.
Natalie Ocegueda’s request for more time; the statutory stay in the case was not lifted.
What happened
In Ocegueda v. Zuckerberg, Natalie Ocegueda brought a shareholder case on behalf of Facebook against Mark Zuckerberg and other defendants.
Ocegueda asked the court to enlarge the time allowed in the case. The court said she had not shown that the statutory stay should be lifted and found that the cases she cited did not change that result.
Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to enlarge time. The order left the statutory stay in place and disposed of the motion identified as ECF No. 66.
The detailed version
- Ocegueda v. Zuckerberg · No. 3:20-cv-04444
- Laurel Beeler
- Apr. 16, 2021
Background
Natalie Ocegueda sued derivatively on behalf of Facebook. The defendants include Mark Zuckerberg and others. The order addresses Ocegueda’s motion to enlarge time, identified as ECF No. 66.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on its reasoning in a prior related proceeding, cited as 411 F. Supp. 3d 649, 652–54 (N.D. Cal. 2019). It held that Ocegueda had not established that the court should lift the stay required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, referred to in the order as the “PSLRA stay.” The court said the cases Ocegueda cited were distinguishable. It also said that a case from the Central District of California did not address the prior related proceeding and arose in a distinguishable context.
Ruling
Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to enlarge time. The order does not state the length of the requested extension, and it does not decide the merits of the underlying shareholder claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.