JS6

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 5 NATHAN C. SILVA, No. 2:25-cv-08477-RGK-RAO 6 derivatively on behalf of SNAP INC., [PROPOSED] ORDER OF 7 Plaintiffs, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 8 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.

9 EVAN SPIEGEL, DEREK 41(A)(1)(A)(ii) AND 23.1(C) 10 ANDERSEN, ROBERT MURPHY,

MICHAEL LYNTON, KELLY [11]

11 COFFEY, JOANNA COLES, LIZ 12 JENKINS, JIM LANZONE, SCOTT

D. MILLER, PATRICK SPENCE,

13 POPPY THORPE, and FIDEL 14 VARGAS, Defendants, 15 and 16

SNAP INC.

17 Nominal Defendant. 18 19 WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025 Plaintiff Nathan C. Silva (“Plaintiff”) filed 20 a shareholder derivative action in this Court purportedly on behalf of Nominal 21 Defendant Snap Inc. (“Snap” or the “Company”) against Evan Spiegel, Derek 22 Andersen, Robert Murphy, Michael Lynton, Kelly Coffey, Joanna Coles, Liz Jenkins, 23 Jim Lanzone, Scott D. Miller, Patrick Spence, Poppy Thorpe, and Fidel Vargas, 24 (collectively, the “Defendants”) (collectively with Plaintiff and Snap, the “Parties”); 25 WHEREAS, following a meet and confer between the Parties, Plaintiff agreed 26 to voluntarily dismiss this action in order to pursue remedies under Delaware law; and 27 WHEREAS, Rule 23.1 requires the Court’s approval for a voluntary dismissal 1 || “when one or more shareholders or members of a corporation or an unincorporated 2 ||association bring a derivative action to enforce a right that the corporation or 3 || association may properly assert but has failed to enforce.” Fed.R. Civ. P. 23.1(a). 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 5 || DECREED THAT: 6 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) and 23.1(c), 7 || the action is dismissed without prejudice as to all claims and causes of action, with 8 || each party bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 9 2. Notice to shareholders of this stipulation of voluntary dismissal is not 10 || required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(c) because: (1) there has been no 11 || settlement or compromise of this Action; (ii) there has been no collusion among the 12 || Parties, and Plaintiff seeks dismissal in order to pursue remedies under Delaware law; 13 || (411) no compensation in any form has passed directly or indirectly from any of the || Defendants to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's attorneys, and no promise to give any such 15 || compensation has been made; (iv) the voluntary dismissal is made without prejudice 16 || and therefore will not have any preclusive effect on any other action or the ability of 17 || any other Snap Inc. shareholder to pursue claims; and (v) Defendants will not suffer 18 || any prejudice as they do not oppose this voluntary dismissal, see, e.g., Indiana State 19 || Dist. Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension Fund on Behalf of Elecs. for 20 || Imaging, Inc. v. Gecht, 2007 WL 9822669, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007) (“case law 21 || indicates that [notice under Rule 23.1(c)] may be obviated if the corporation will not 22 ||suffer prejudice and there is no trace of collusion between the plaintiff(s) and the 23 || defendant(s)’”). 24 || SO ORDERED. 25 26 |] Date: 9/30/2025 j Rasrenen 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28