1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARK SLOAN, Case No. 22-cv-00903-JST

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER VACATING HEARINGS;

9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASES SHOULD NOT BE

10 MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., CONSOLIDATED AND STAYED 11 Defendants. Re: ECF No. 18 12 HUGHES GERVAT, Case No. 22-cv-01206-JST

13 Plaintiff, Re: ECF No. 7 14 v.

15 MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs Mark Sloan and Hughes Gervat have filed shareholder derivative suits against 19 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. They agree, as do Defendants, that their 20 cases should be consolidated. Sloan ECF No. 15 at 3-4. They further agree that their allegations 21 “overlap substantially” with the allegations in a securities class action that is also before this 22 Court, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-08812- 23 JST. Id. at 3. 24 Proposed Intervenors Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, St. Paul 25 Electrical Construction Pension Plan, St. Paul Electrical Construction Workers Supplemental 26 Pension Plan, and Retirement Medical Funding Plan for the St. Paul Electrical Workers have 27 moved to intervene and stay these cases until after they have completed their investigation of 1 Sloan ECF No. 18; Gervat ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs oppose Proposed Intervenors’ motion. Sloan 2 || ECF No. 36; Gervat ECF No. 28. Defendants take no position on the motion to intervene but 3 support a broader stay of these derivative actions pending the securities class action. Sloan ECF 4 No. 37; Gervat ECF No. 30. 5 Although no party has moved for such a stay, the Court orders the parties to show cause as 6 || to why this case should not be stayed at least until after the Court has resolved any challenges to 7 || the complaint in the securities class action. “Courts generally stay a shareholder derivative suit 8 || until the culmination of a securities class action when the cases arise from the same factual 9 || allegations and the evidence in the former could jeopardize the company’s defense in the latter.” 10 In re STEC, Inc. Derivative Litig., No. CV 10-00667-JVS (MLGx), 2012 WL 8978155, at *4 11 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012); see also, e.g., In re RH S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 18-cv-02452- 12 YGR, 2019 WL 580668, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019) (following In re STEC). Such a stay 5 13 would include delaying consideration of the pending motions to intervene. 14 Proposed Intervenors may, but are not required to, state their position regarding this 3 15 || proposed stay. Proposed Intervenors are also invited to respond to the parties’ stipulation to 16 || consolidate these two cases for all purposes. 3 17 Within 28 days of the date of this order, the parties and Proposed Intervenors shall file a 18 single document containing either their agreed positions or their separate positions (or in the case 19 of Proposed Intervenors, a statement that they take no position on either the stay or whether the 20 cases should be consolidated). The matter will then be taken under submission without oral 21 argument, unless otherwise ordered. 22 The May 19, 2022 hearings on Proposed Intervenors’ motions to intervene are vacated. 23 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The June 14, 2022 initial case management 24 || conferences are also vacated. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 2, 2022 .

27 JON S. TIGAR' 28 nited States District Judge