Hertel v. Errez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTY HERTEL, derivatively on Case No.: 23cv1165-GPC(SBC) behalf of RYVVL INC. f/k/a GREENBOX POS, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, Plaintiff, ACCEPT SERVICE AND APPOINT v. CO-COUNSEL BEN ERREZ, FREDI NISAN, J DREW [Dkt. No. 8.]

16 BYELICK, BENJAMIN CHUNG, GENEVIEVE BAER, WILLIAM CARAGOL, EZRA LANIADO and DENNIS JAMES Defendants, 20 and RYVVL, INC., Nominal Defendant, 23 Before the Court is a joint motion to consolidate the cases of Hertel v. Errez, Case No. 23cv1165-GPC(SBC), and Gazaway v. Errez, 23cv1425-LAB(BLM), accept service, || and appoint co-lead counsel in these shareholder derivative complaints.! (Dkt. No. 8.)

2 || Plaintiffs in the joint motion are Christy Hertel and Marcus Gazaway, the plaintiffs in the 3 shareholder derivative complaints. Defendants who joined in the joint motion are || Ben Errez, Fredi Nisan, Benjamin Chung, Genevieve Baer, William Caragol, Ezra || Laniado, Dennis James, and Nominal Defendant Ryvvl, Inc. (Dkt. No. 8.) Defendant J.

6 || Drew Byelick is absent from the joint motion and no proof of service of the joint motion 7 been filed indicating Mr. Byelick received notice of the joint motion.

8 “Defendants’ indication that the present motion is brought as a ‘joint’ motion is somewhat misleading.” Ruiz v. Jimenez, Case No.: 22cv233-LL-WVG, 2022 WL 10 || 867010, at *3 n. 3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022) (quoting Harville v. Cnty. Comm'n of || Lawrence Cnty., Alabama, No. cv-08-C-0222-NE, 2008 WL 11379962, at *1 n. 3 (N.D. || Ala. Nov. 19, 2008)). “Typically, ‘joint’ motions are brought by all parties to a particular |}lawsuit....” Jd.; see also Maisel v. AEH Co., Inc., Case No.: 3:21-cv-01493-BEN-DEB, 14 WL 4551939, at *1 n. 2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) (same).

15 Here, Defendant Byelick has not joined in the “joint motion.” Because granting || the joint motion will impact Mr. Byelick, who has not been provided notice of the joint || motion, and also in the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation, and judicial efficiency, 18 Court DENIES the joint motion to consolidate cases, accept service and appoint co- ||counsel. To the extent Mr. Byelick declines to agree to the joint motion, Plaintiff must || file the appropriate motion with the Court.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 ||Dated: August 25, 2023 C2. □□ 23 Hon. athe Cok.

4 United States District Judge |} |!" At the time the joint motion was filed, the two cases had not been low numbered. In this district, consolidation cannot occur with two cases assigned to different district judges. However, because the two cases were low numbered on August 24, 2023, the joint motion to consolidate is now permissible.