The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 19-9374 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019
Title John Mitchell 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 31, 2019, plaintiff John Mitchell (“plaintiff Mitchell”) filed a shareholder
derivative complaint on behalf of Inogen, Inc. (“Inogen”) against various of Inogen’s corporate
officers (collectively, “defendants”). (See John Mitchell v. Scott Wilkinson, etal., Case No. CV 19-
9374 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Mitchell”), Dkt. 1, “Mitchell Complaint” at J 1, 13-28). Plaintiff
Mitchell alleges claims for violation of § 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and
insider trading. (See Dkt 1, Mitchell Complaint at [| 140-62). Plaintiff Mitchell'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 id. at {| 2-8).
Within weeks or months of the filing of plaintiff Mitchell’s complaint, several other Inogen
shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against the company’s corporate officers, alleging violations
some of which overlap with those of plaintiff Mitchell, 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’; Carole Butcher v. Scott
Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-8685 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Butcher”), Dkt. 1, “Butcher
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
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.
Initials of Preparer cw