In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-03509
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Re PG&E Securities Litigation: Judge Davila denied about 700 class members’ intervention motion without prejudice because a pending appeal covered the stay.
Approximately 700 putative class members who sought to intervene; the motion may be refiled after the pending appeal is resolved.
What happened
In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation involved a motion by approximately 700 proposed class members to intervene. They wanted to oppose efforts to end a stay in the case and any future request for preliminary approval of a settlement.
The court said it lacked authority to consider the motion because the named plaintiffs had appealed the order that imposed the stay. That appeal included the stay, so the district court could not address a motion seeking to preserve it.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the motion to intervene without prejudice to refiling after the pending appeal is resolved.
The detailed version
- In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation · No. 5:18-cv-03509
- Edward Davila
- July 31, 2023
Background
Approximately 700 putative class members, called “Intervenors” by the court, moved to intervene in the action. They sought to oppose efforts by the parties to dissolve a stay entered on September 30, 2022, and/or any forthcoming motion for preliminary approval of a settlement.
Jurisdiction
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to consider the motion. The named plaintiffs had appealed the stay order on October 31, 2022. Relying on the rule that an appeal removes the district court’s control over the parts of a case involved in the appeal, the court concluded that the stay was involved in the pending appeal. It therefore lacked power to address the motion to intervene insofar as it sought to preserve the stay.
Disposition
The court denied the Intervenors’ motion to intervene without prejudice to refiling it after the pending appeal is resolved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.