Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00698/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00698-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INDIANA STATE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF

LABORERS AND HOD CARRIERS

PENSION FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of

Electronics for Imaging, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUY GECHT, et al.,

Defendants.

and

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a

Delaware Corporation

Nominal Defendant.

___________________________________/

CITY OF ANN ARBOR EMPLOYEES’

RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUY GECHT, et al.,

Defendants.

and

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a

Delaware Corporation

Nominal Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-7274 EMC

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND

HEARING ON DEFENDANT

UNTERBERG’S MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE AND STAY

No. C-06-7453 EMC

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

TRUEMAN PARISH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAN AVIDA, et al.

Defendants.

and

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a

Delaware Corporation

Nominal Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-0698 MEJ

The Court has related three lawsuits filed in this District: (1) Indiana State District Council

of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension Fund v. Gecht, No. C-06-7274 EMC; (2) City of Ann Arbor

Employees’ Retirement System v. Gecht, No. C-06-7453 EMC; and (3) Parish v. Avida, No. C-07-

0698 EMC. Currently pending is Defendant Thomas I. Unterberg’s motion to consolidate all three

actions and to stay the cases (excepting the motion to remand in the Ann Arbor case) pending

resolution of the motion to consolidate and filing of consolidated complaint. 

Although Mr. Unterberg has labeled the motion an administrative motion, it is not properly

characterized as such. See Civ. L.R. 7-11 (providing that, in the course of proceedings, a party may

need a court order with respect to a miscellaneous administrative matter not otherwise governed by,

inter alia, a Federal or Local Rule; noting that administrative motions are motions such as those to

exceed page limitations or to file documents under seal). The Court therefore treats the motion as a

motion governed by Civil Local Rule 7-2. On the other hand, because Mr. Unterberg is asking for a

stay of proceedings pending resolution of the motion to consolidate, the Court will shorten time on

the request for a stay.

Any opposition to the motion to stay shall be filed by February 21, 2007. Unless otherwise

ordered, the Court will rule on the motion to stay on the papers. 

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

As for the motion to consolidate, it shall be heard on March 14, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. The

initial case management conference for all three actions shall be rescheduled for the same day and

time. Any opposition to the motion to consolidate shall be filed by February 26, 2007, and a reply

by March 5, 2007. Although this hearing date gives Plaintiffs only thirty days notice, and not thirtyfive, see Civ. L.R. 7-2, it will not unduly prejudice them. Similarly, although this briefing schedule

does not comport with Civil Local Rule 7-3, it will not unduly prejudice either Plaintiffs or

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2007

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3