Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02005/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02005-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAD MAUSS, individually and on

behalf of all other persons similarly

situated,

 Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2005 JM (JLB)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO STAY ACTION

PENDING APPEAL

v.

NUVASIVE, INC.; ALEXIS V.

LUKIANOV; KEVIN C. O’BOYLE;

and MICHAEL J. LAMBERT, 

Defendants.

 

On April 4, 2017, Defendants NuVasive, Inc., Alexis V. Lukianov, Kevin C.

O’Boyle, and Michael J. Lambert (collectively “Defendants”) filed with the Ninth

Circuit a Petition for Permission to Appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) (“Petition”). The

Petition seeks discretionary appellate review of this court’s March 22, 2017 Order

Granting Motion for Class Certification (“Order”). In an opposed ex parte application,

Defendants seek to stay this action pending resolution of the Rule 23(f) Petition.

1

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) providesthat the Ninth Circuit may permit an appeal from an

order on class certification. In order to prevail on the motion to stay, Defendants must

show that their Rule 23(f) Petition raises a serious legal question and that they would

 The court incorporates its March 22, 2017 Order as if fully set forth herein. 1

- 1 - 13cv2005

Case 3:13-cv-02005-JM-JLB Document 134 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay. The court also considers the public

interest. See Astiana v. Kashi Co., No. 3:11cv01967 H(BGS), 2013 LEXIS 194823,

at *10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2013); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir.

2011); Gray v. Golden Gate Nat'l Rec. Area, No. C 08-00722 EDL, 2011 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 149232, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011). The factors are to be evaluated on a

flexible continuum, but the seriouslegal question and the irreparable injury prongs are

the most critical. Id. at 965; Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., Case No.:

5:10-CV-01189-LK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60814, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2011). 

Here, Defendants’ motion to stay is not well-founded because they fail to

establish a serious legal question or that they would be irreparably harmed if a stay is

not granted. The Order, in relative straight-forward fashion, applied binding Ninth

Circuit precedent and concluded that Plaintiffs met their burden of establishing the

adequacy of class counsel and the class representatives for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(a). See Order at p.5:27 - 7:17. In large part, Defendants contend that the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78U-4 et seq., raises the bar

for putative class representatives to satisfy the adequacy prong of Rule 23(a). The

Order rejected this assertion, as has the Ninth Circuit. See Order at p.5: 3 - 4; In re

Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 739 (9th Cir. 2002) (“we cannot agree that the [PSLRA] was

meant to ‘raise the standard adequacy threshold’”). Accordingly, the court concludes

that Defendants fail to raise a serious legal question.

Defendants also fail to establish irreparable harm. Defendants contend that they

should not have to spend money on discovery because, if the Order is reversed on

appeal, “it will fundamentally change the scope of this case.” (Application at p.7:15-

16). While individual damages are certainly lessthan class-wide damages, Defendants

simply fail to explain how a denial of class certification will eliminate the necessity for 

discovery on Plaintiffs’ individual claims. While issues related to damages may be

simplified by the denial of class certification, issues with respect to liability remain. 

The minimal harm identified by Nuvasive does not support a stay of the action,

- 2 - 13cv2005

Case 3:13-cv-02005-JM-JLB Document 134 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

particularly where a stay would further delay resolution of Plaintiffs’ nearly four-year

quest for relief. Accordingly, the court rejects Defendants’ contention of significant

irreparable harm.

Finally, public interests caution against granting a stay of this action. This case

is nearly four-years old and the public has an interest in the efficient prosecution of

securities laws and seeking to hold alleged corporate wrongdoers accountable. This

factor does not favor a stay.

In sum, the court denies the application to stay the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2017

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 3 - 13cv2005

Case 3:13-cv-02005-JM-JLB Document 134 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3