The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 19-8634 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019
Title Haitham Saeed 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 7, 2019, plaintiff Haitham Saeed (“plaintiff Saeed”) filed a shareholder
derivative complaint on behalf of Inogen, Inc. (“Inogen”) against various of Inogen’s corporate
officers (collectively, “defendants”). (See Haitham Saeed v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV
19-8634 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.) (“Saeed”), Dkt. 1, “Saeed Complaint” at Jf] 1, 31-78). Plaintiff
Saeed alleges claims for violation of section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Saeed’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, Saeed Complaint at □□ 5-
22).
Within weeks or months of the filing of plaintiff Saeed’s complaint, several other Inogen
shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against the company’s corporate officers, alleging the same
violations as plaintiff Saeed’ and making similar factual allegations. (See, generally, Twana
Brown v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-5568 FMO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, “Brown
Complaint”; Carole Butcher v. Scott Wilkinson, et al., Case No. CV 19-8685 FMO (AGRx) (C.D.
Cal.), Dkt. 1, “Butcher 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
' 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 19-8634 FMO (AGRx) Date December 13, 2019
Title Haitham Saeed v. Scott Wilkinson, et al.
‘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.
00 : 00
Initials of Preparer cw