The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 19-8685 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019
Title Carole Butcher v. Scott Wilkinson, et al.
Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Cheryl Wynn None None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Consolidation of Actions
On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Carole Butcher (“plaintiff Butcher’) filed a shareholder
derivative complaint on behalf of Inogen, Inc. (“Inogen”) against various of Inogen’s corporate
officers (collectively, “defendants”). (See Carole Butcher v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV
19-8685 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Butcher”), Dkt. 1, “Butcher Complaint’ at Jf] 1, 25-39). Plaintiff
Butcher alleges claims for violation of § 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Butcher’s claims arise from allegations that
defendants misled investors about the reasons for Inogen’s initial financial success, exaggerated
the size of the market for the company’s products as well as its growth potential, and failed to
disclose material information about the company. (See Dkt 1, Butcher Complaint at {J 3-21).
Within weeks or months of the filing of plaintiff Butcher’s complaint, several other Inogen
shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against the company’s corporate officers, alleging the same
violations as plaintiff Butcher’ and making similar factual allegations. (See, generally, Twana
Brown v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-5568 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Brown”), Dkt.
1, “Brown Complaint’; Haitham Saeed v. Scott Wilkinson, et_al., Case No. CV 19-8634 FMO
(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Saeed”), Dkt. 1, “Saeed Complaint’; John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson, et al.,
Case No. CV 19-9374 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, “Mitchell Complaint”).
“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may .. .
consolidate the actions[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The court “weighs the saving of time and
effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would
cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). “A district court generally has
‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions[.]” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th
' Although plaintiff John Mitchell's factual allegations against defendants are substantively
similar, his causes of action are slightly different. (See John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson, et al.,
Case No. CV 19-9374 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, “Mitchell Complaint” at {J 140-62). Unlike
the other three plaintiffs, plaintiff John Mitchell brought an insider trading claim and did not bring
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 19-8685 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019
Title Carole Butcher v. Scott Wilkinson, et al.
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, IT |S ORDERED that by no later than December 20, 2019, the parties
shall file either a stipulation or response, not to exceed five pages, to show cause why the Saeed,
Brown, Butcher, and Mitchell actions should not be consolidated.
00 : 00
Initials of Preparer cw