1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DINO DIBLASIO, Case No. 2:24-cv-05924-FLA (Ex)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 v. THE STAYS IN THE ACTIONS BEARING CASE NOS. 2:20-cv-01572- 14 FLA (Ex) AND 2:24-cv-05924-FLA STEVEN W. STREIT, et al., (Ex) SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED; 15 Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 16 SOME OR ALL THREE OF THE

ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE

17

CONSOLIDATED

18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 On May 29, 2025, the following related actions were transferred from the 3 calendar of Judge Dean D. Pregerson to the calendar of this court: (1) In re Green Dot 4 Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-10701-FLA (Ex) (“In re Green 5 Dot,” or “Case 19-10701”); (2) Brian Hellman v. Steven W. Streit, et al., Case No. 6 2:20-cv-01572-FLA (Ex) (the “Hellman action,” or “Case 20-1572”); and (3) Dino 7 DiBlasio v. Steven W. Streit, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05924-FLA (Ex) (the “DiBlasio 8 action,” or “Case 24-5924”). Dkt. 166. The Hellman and DiBlasio actions have been 9 stayed pending the close of fact discovery in In re Green Dot. Case 20-1572, Dkt. 29; 10 Case 24-5924, Dkt. 14. 11 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 12 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 13 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 14 254 (1936). “A trial court, may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket 15 and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending 16 resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified 17 Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “This rule applies whether 18 the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does 19 not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action 20 before the court.” Id. at 863–64. “In such cases the court may order a stay of the 21 action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just 22 determination of the cases pending before it.” Id. at 864. 23 “Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing 24 interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be 25 weighed.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Among these 26 competing interests are [1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of 27 a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 28 forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 1 | complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result 2 | froma stay.” Jd. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). “The proponent of a stay bears 3 || the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) 4 || (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). 5 Document production was to be substantially completed in Jn re Green Dot by 6 | April 11,2025. Case 19-10701, Dkt. 148 at 2. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the 7 | parties in the Hellman and DiBlasio actions to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the stays in 8 | those actions should not be lifted. Any requests to continue the stays must be 9 | supported by compelling reasons for why a further stay is necessary, and a specific 10 | showing of what additional discovery from /n re Green Dot the parties believe is 11 | needed before the Hellman and DiBlasio actions can proceed. 12 The court further ORDERS the parties in all three actions to Show Cause why 13 | some or all of the actions should not be consolidated.' 14 The parties’ written responses to the OSCs are due on or before June 20, 2025, 15 || and these matters shall be heard in Courtroom 6B on June 25, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 | Dated: June 9, 2025 0 FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 | | Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 95 || common question of law or fact.” “[A] district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. 26 | Ct, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court 27 || weighs the interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commce’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch 28 | Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted).