Khan v. Board of Directors of Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-07561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Khan v. Board of Directors, Judge Halpern consolidated two related cases and set deadlines for a combined complaint and counsel motions.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Khan and Greenberg actions, as well as the lawyers seeking appointment as interim lead class counsel or co-counsel.
What happened
In Khan v. Board of Directors of Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan, the court considered defendants’ request to combine this case with the related Greenberg case. The plaintiffs opposed consolidation.
The court granted the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and consolidated Greenberg into Khan. Future filings were ordered to use Khan’s docket number, and plaintiffs’ lawyers were directed to file a combined amended complaint.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also set deadlines for defendants’ response to the combined complaint and for briefing about appointing interim lead class counsel, including whether both proposed law firms should serve as co-counsel.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Board of Directors of Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan · No. 7:20-cv-07561
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 11, 2020
Background
Counsel for all parties appeared by telephone for a pre-motion conference. The defendants had asked for permission to file a motion to consolidate Khan with the related action Greenberg v. Bd. of Dirs. of Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan, No. 20-cv-08503-PMH. The court treated the defendants’ request as a motion to consolidate and considered the written responses and the parties’ arguments.
Ruling on Consolidation
The court granted the defendants’ request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It consolidated the Greenberg action into the Khan action. Unless the court later ordered otherwise, all future filings had to be filed under docket number 20-cv-07561-PMH. The defendants did not have to respond separately to the complaints that were combined through the consolidation order.
Required Filing and Motion Deadlines
The court directed counsel for all plaintiffs to meet and confer and file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by December 28, 2020. The court also directed plaintiffs to limit the pleading to material necessary and relevant to the burden of proof.
By January 11, 2021, the defendants had to file one of three items: a letter stating that they intended to pursue their earlier anticipated motion to dismiss; a new pre-motion conference letter addressing the Consolidated Amended Complaint; or an answer to that complaint. If the defendants filed a new pre-motion letter, the plaintiffs’ response was due January 19, 2021, after which the court would set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
Interim Class Counsel
The court set deadlines for briefing on the pending motion to appoint Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP as interim lead class counsel and the Greenberg plaintiffs’ competing motion supporting appointment of Capozzi Adler, P.C. The parties were also directed to address whether both firms should be appointed as co-counsel. No reply briefs were permitted.
Effect of the Order
This order consolidated the two cases and managed the next pleadings and counsel-appointment proceedings. The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying claims or any anticipated motion to dismiss. Judge Philip M. Halpern also reminded the parties to follow his individual practices and the available civil-case discovery plan and scheduling order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.