Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COBALT PARTNERS, LP, COBALT

PARTNERS II, LP, COBALT OFFSHORE

MASTER FUND, LP AND COBALT KC

PARTNERS, LP,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA, BRIAN

WUEBBELS, MARTIN TRUONG, ALEJANDRO

HERNANDEZ, EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ,

ANTONIO R. ALVAREZ, PETER BLACKMORE,

CLAYTON DALEY JR., GEORGANNE

PROCTOR, STEVEN TESORIERE, JAMES B.

WILLIAMS, RANDY H. ZWIRN, GOLDMAN,

SACHS & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL

LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH

INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK

SECURITIES INC., MACQUARIE CAPITAL

(USA), INC., MCS CAPITAL MARKETS LLC and

DOES 1- 25, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED CASES.

 /

No. C 16-02263 WHA

Related Cases:

No. 16-cv-02264-WHA 

No. 16-cv-02265-WHA 

No. 16-cv-02268-WHA

No. 16-cv-04883-WHA

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

REGARDING COORDINATION

OF CASES

On August 26, 2016, an order denied motions to remand as to four of the related cases

and certified an issue for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (see Case No. 16-02265,

Dkt. No. 73). Plaintiffs in Cobalt, Glenview, and Omega subsequently filed petitions for

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 148 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

interlocutory review pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1292. Plaintiffs in the Bloom class action did not file a

petition for interlocutory review.

On September 7, 2016, an order related a fifth action, Bloom II (Case No.

16-cv-04883-WHA) to these actions.

This order requests responses from the parties regarding the following question: to what

extent should the Bloom class action (Case No. C 16-02265 WHA) and the newly-related class

action (Case No. 16-cv-04883-WHA), Bloom II, be stayed pending such time as our court of

appeals acts upon the pending petitions for interlocutory review? BY SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 AT

NOON, the parties may submit briefs of no more than five pages responding to this question. 

The Court asks the parties to consolidate briefs where appropriate and avoid submitting

duplicative briefs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 148 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2