# Anderson

> District Court, S.D. California · November 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210620

## Case

- **Full name:** Jherome Deguzman, derivatively on behalf of Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. v. Joel D. Anderson, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** November 17, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210620

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JHEROME DEGUZMAN, derivatively on Case Nos.: 25-CV-1964 JLS (VET)
behalf of PETCO HEALTH AND 25-CV-1985 JLS (VET)
12
WELLNESS COMPANY, INC.,
13
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING REVISED
14
v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
15 CONSOLIDATE RELATED
JOEL D. ANDERSON, et al.,
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
16
Defendants ACTIONS AND APPOINT CO-LEAD
17 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
and
18
PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS (ECF No. 14)
19 COMPANY, INC.,
20 Nominal Defendant.
21

DANIELLE MILLER, derivatively on
22
behalf of PETCO HEALTH AND
23 WELLNESS COMPANY, INC.,
24 Plaintiff,
25
26
27
28
1

2 v.

3 JOEL D. ANDERSON, et al.,
4 Defendants
5 and
6 PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS
7 COMPANY, INC.,
Nominal Defendant
8
9
10 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Jherome Deguzman’s and Danielle Miller’s
11 Revised Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and
12 Appoint Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs (“Mot.,” ECF No. 14) in the above-captioned
13 actions (“Related Derivative Actions”). Also before the Court is a Statement of Non-
14 Opposition to Revised Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative
15 Actions and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs (“Non-Opp’n,” ECF No. 15) filed by
16 Defendants Joel D. Anderson, R. Michael Mohan, Ronald V. Coughlin, Jr., Sabrina
17 Simmons, Brian LaRose, Michael Nuzzo, Glenn Murphy, Iris Yen, Cameron Breitner,
18 Gary Briggs, Nishad Chande, David Lubek, Christopher J. Stadler, Mary Sullivan, Christy
19 Lake, Maximilian Biagosch, and Jennifer Pereira, and Nominal Defendant Petco Health
20 and Wellness Company, Inc. (“Petco”) (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons stated
21 below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 14).
22 BACKGROUND
23 On June 30, 2025, Joshua Spurbeck filed a complaint against Petco, alleging
24 violations of § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
25 (“Exchange Act”). See generally Spurbeck v. Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc.
26 et al., 25-CV-1667 JLS (VET) (“Spurbeck Action”), ECF No. 1 (“Spurbeck Compl.”).
27 Spurbeck’s claims arise from allegedly materially false and misleading statements
28
1 regarding the Petco’s growth around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite its
2 declining financial performance and eventual stock price drops. Id. ¶ 6–21. Spurbeck
3 alleges that because “Petco’s pandemic-related tailwinds were unsustainable,” “the
4 strength of Petco’s differentiated product strategy was overstated” and the named
5 defendants “downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, the magnitude
6 of changes needed to rectify those issues, and the likely negative impacts.” Id. ¶ 6.
7 Soon after Spurbeck brought the above-described securities class action against
8 Petco, Plaintiffs Jherome Deguzman and Danielle Miller brought the Related Derivative
9 Actions on behalf of Petco against Defendants, who largely have served on Petco’s Board
10 of Directors. Deguzman filed a complaint on August 1, 2025, alleging violations of § 14(a)
11 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a), and Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R.§240.14a-9), breach
12 of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of
13 corporate assets, and contribution under §§ 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. See
14 generally ECF No. 1 (“Deguzman Compl.”). On the same day, Miller filed a complaint
15 alleging violations of § 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
16 enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and
17 contribution under §§ 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. See generally Miller v.
18 Anderson et al., 25-CV-1985 JLS (VET), ECF No. 1 (“Miller Compl.”). Although the
19 claims contained therein differ, the Deguzman and Miller Complaints are nearly identical
20 to the Spurbeck Complaint in that they arise out of similar allegedly false and misleading
21 statements in connection with Petco’s performance and subsequent stock price drops
22 between approximately 2021 and 2025. See Deguzman Compl. ¶¶ 67–114; Miller Compl.
23 ¶¶ 86–157; cf. Spurbeck Compl. ¶¶ 46–109.
24 On August 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Related
25 Shareholder Derivative Actions and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. See ECF
26 No. 5. The Court denied the joint motion without prejudice and ordered Plaintiffs to
27 include a more robust analysis as to their request to appoint co-lead counsel and to address
28
1 whether consolidating the Related Derivative Actions with the Spurbeck Action would
2 serve the interests of judicial economy. ECF No. 6 (“Order”) at 2–3. The Court further
3 ordered Plaintiffs to serve the Order on Plaintiff Joshua Spurbeck and invited Spurbeck to
4 weigh in on consolidation. Id. at 3.
5 In response to the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on September 24,
6 2025, seeking to consolidate the Related Derivative Actions, and any later-filed related
7 actions, under Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-01964-JLS-VET and to appoint The Brown Law
8 Firm, P.C. (“The Brown Law Firm”) and Rigrodsky Law, P.A. (“Rigrodsky Law”) as co-
9 lead counsel representing Plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs and
10 Defendants request that the Court not consolidate the Related Derivative Actions with the
11 Spurbeck Action. Id.; Non-Opp’n at 1. Spurbeck did not file a response to the Court’s
12 Order. See generally Docket.
13 CONSOLIDATION
14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), permits a district court to consolidate actions
15 “involv[ing] a common question of law or fact[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “A district court
16 generally has ‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions.” Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526
17 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). “The purpose of consolidation is to avoid the unnecessary
18 costs or delays that would ensue from proceeding separately with claims or issues sharing
19 common aspects of law or fact.” Mohanty v. BigBand Networks, Inc., No. C 07-5101 SBA,
20 2008 WL 426250, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (citing EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d
21 543, 550 (8th Cir. 1998)).
22 Here, the Related Derivative Actions are brought against substantially the same
23 Defendants, allege similar claims, and arise out of the same allegedly materially false and
24 misleading statements made by Defendants. See Mot. at 3–4. Consolidation of the Related
25 Derivative Actions is therefore appropriate and serves the purposes of consolidation. See
26 Silva on behalf of Dexcom, Inc. v. Sayer, No. 24-CV-1645-RSH-VET, 2024 WL 5145970,
27 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2024) (finding consolidation appropriate where shareholder
28
1 derivative suits were “brought against the same defendants, allege[d] the same or
2 substantially identical violations of law, and involve[d] the same predicate facts”)
3 (collecting cases); Mohanty, 2008 WL 426250, at *2.
4 However, Plaintiffs argue that consolidation of the Related Derivative Actions with
5 the Spurbeck Action is not appropriate. To start, the Spurbeck Action is a securities class
6 action alleging violations against Petco as opposed to on behalf of Petco (as in a
7 shareholder derivative suit), which comes with distinct procedural and heightened pleading
8 requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). Mot. at 5.
9 Plaintiffs also point to the differing remedies between the two types of actions—recovery
10 from versus for Petco—as well as incomplete overlap in the named defendants. Id. at 5–6.
11 Thus, despite arising from “substantially the same transactions, happenings, or events,”
12 consolidation of the Related Derivative Actions with the Spurbeck Action “risk[s] . . .
13 prejudice and confusion.” Id. at 4.
14 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have declined to
15 consolidate securities class actions with related shareholder derivative actions. See, e.g.,
16 Sanders v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-01038-EJD, 2013 WL 5550435, at *2 (N.D.
17 Cal. Oct. 7, 2013) (holding that consolidation of shareholder derivative action with
18 securities class action “may result in unfair prejudice to the[] additional parties”); Nicolow
19 v. Hewlett Packard Co., 2013 WL 792642, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) (holding that
20 derivative shareholder suits, non-derivative securities class actions, and ERISA suits
21 shared common facts but legal issues were “sufficiently distinct” such that allowing three
22 separate actions to proceed was appropriate). Here, consolidation with the Spurbeck
23 Action is not appropriate for the reasons raised by Plaintiffs. See Mot. at 4–6. Accordingly,
24 the Court finds consolidation of the Related Derivative Actions appropriate, but does not
25 find consolidation with the Spurbeck Action appropriate.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28
1 APPOINTMENT OF LEAD COUNSEL
2 “District courts regularly (but are not required to) appoint lead counsel in complex
3 consolidated suits.” Nicolow, 2013 WL 792642, at *6 (first citing Vincent v. Hughes Air
4 West, Inc., 557 F.2d 759, 774 (9th Cir. 1979); and then citing 9A Wright & Miller, Federal
5 Practice & Procedure § 2385 (3d ed. 2008)). “The appointment of lead counsel is designed
6 to eliminate ‘duplication and repetition’ by creating ‘a coordinator of diffuse plaintiffs
7 through whom motions and discovery proceedings will be channeled.’” Silva on behalf of
8 Dexcom, Inc., 2024 WL 5145970, at *2 (quoting Vincent, 557 F.2d at 774).
9 Here, Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint The Brown Law Firm and Rigrodsky
10 Law as co-lead counsel. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs submit that The Brown Law Firm and
11 Rigrodsky Law are “are both well capitalized and fully capable and prepared to staff and
12 finance this derivative litigation and have extensive experience in handling complex
13 shareholder derivative litigation, having served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous
14 derivative cases around the country, and have demonstrated a high level of professionalism
15 in securing a number of significant recoveries.” Mot. at 8.
16 Having reviewed the law firms’ resumes and considered each firm’s experience with
17 shareholder derivative suits, the Court finds each law firm independently qualified to serve
18 as lead counsel in this litigation. See ECF Nos. 14-2, 14-3; Mot. at 8–12. Additionally,
19 other courts in the Ninth Circuit have appointed co-lead counsel in shareholder derivative
20 actions. See, e.g., Lee ex rel Coherent, Inc., 2007 WL 1558565, at *2; Hacker v.
21 Peterschmidt, 2006 WL 2925683, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2006). Accordingly, the Court
22
23
24
1 Unlike in a securities class action subject to the PSLRA, there is no requirement to appoint a lead plaintiff
in a shareholder derivative action before appointing lead counsel. See, e.g., Lee ex rel Coherent, Inc. v.
25 Ambroseo, No. C 07-0955JFHRL, 2007 WL 1558565, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2007) (noting that neither
Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23.1 nor 42(a) “requires that a court appoint a lead plaintiff in a
26 consolidated shareholder derivative action” and that “[n]o Ninth Circuit precedent suggests that
appointment of a lead plaintiff is required or even appropriate when that issue is contested in a shareholder
27
derivative action”); Sparano v. Lief, No. 10CV2079 BTM BLM, 2011 WL 830109, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
28 3, 2011). The Court will thus not do so in this case, nor do Plaintiffs request that the Court do so.
1 || finds it appropriate to appoint The Brown Law Firm and Rigrodsky Law as co-lead counsel
2 || to represent Plaintiffs in this action.
3 CONCLUSION
4 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to
5 || Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel for
6 || Plaintiffs (ECF No. 14) and ORDERS as follows:
7 1. Deguzman y. Anderson et al., 25-CV-1964 JLS (VET) and Miller v. Anderson
8 al., 25-CV-1985 JLS (VET) are CONSOLIDATED under Lead Case No. 25-CV-1964
9 ||JLS (VET).
10 2. All future filings SHALL bear the caption: “/n re Petco Health and Wellness
11 || Company, Inc. Derivative Litigation.” The Clerk of the Court SHALL rename this action
12 || accordingly.
13 2. The Brown Law Firm and Rigrodsky Law are APPOINTED as co-lead
14 counsel to represent Plaintiffs in this action.
15 3. Plaintiffs SHALL file a consolidated complaint within thirty (30) days of
16 |/ entry of this Order.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 || Dated: November 17, 2025 , tt

19 pen Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25-CV-1964 JLS (VET)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210620. Public record. Not legal advice.