United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, derivatively on behalf of ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Plaintiff,
RICHARD N. BARTON, et al., Defendants.
C. Turner, Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC, Robert B. Weiser
Brett D. Stecker, James. M Ficaro, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.,
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON, Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M.
Egleston, Proposed Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.
L. Berenstain, Sean C. Knowles, Perkins Coie LLP, Meryl L.
Young, Gibson, Dunn & Crut cher LLP Ronald L. Berenstain,
Alexander K. Mircheff, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants Richard N. Barton, Erik C.
Blachford, Lloyd D. Frink, Jay C. Hoag, Gregory B. Maffei,
Spencer M. Rascoff, Gordon S. Stephenson, Gregory L. Waldorf,
Kathleen Philips, April Underwood and Nominal Defendant
Zillow Group, Inc.
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the parties' stipulation
and proposed order to consolidate, appoint lead plaintiffs
and counsel, and stay proceedings (Dkt. No. 21). On October
23, 2017, Plaintiff Matthew Sciabachucchi filed this verified
shareholder derivative complaint (“Derivative
Action”) against Defendants. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January
8, 2018, Melvyn Klein filed a nearly identical shareholder
derivative complaint against Defendants. See Melvyn Klein
v. Richard Barton, , No. C18-0027-JCC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D.
Wash. January 8, 2018).Also pending before this Court, is a
related securities class action (“Securities
Action”) that shares substantial factual overlap with
both Derivative Actions. See In re Zillow Group,
Inc., No. C17-1387-JCC, Dkt. No. 29 (W.D. Wash. 2017,
January 5, 2018).
parties in both Derivative Actions now stipulate that: (1)
the Derivative Actions should be consolidated for all
purposes; (2) Sciabachucchi and Klein should be appointed
lead plaintiffs in the consolidated Derivative Action; (3)
The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. and Gainey McKenna & Egleston
should be appointed co-lead counsel, with Badgley Mullins
Turner PLLC appointed liaison counsel; and (4) the
consolidated Derivative Action should be stayed pending the
Court's adjudication of a motion to dismiss in the
Securities Action. (Dkt. No. 21 at 3-7.)
Derivative Actions should be consolidated because they
involve common questions of fact and law. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1). The Court additionally finds that it is
appropriate for the fair and efficient administration of this
consolidated action to appoint Sciabachucchi and Klein as
lead plaintiffs and to appoint their selected attorneys as
co-lead and liaison counsel. Finally, the Court finds that
all proceedings should be stayed in this consolidated action
pending the resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss
in the Securities Action. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
4(b)(3)(B) (“In any private action arising under this
chapter, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed
during the pendency of any motion to dismiss . . . .”)
the above determinations, the Court ENTERS the following
OF THE ACTIONS
Defendants hereby agree to accept service of the operative
complaints in each of the Derivative Actions.
Defendants are not required to take any action with respect
to the complaints filed in the Derivative Actions, including
answering or otherwise responding.
Derivative Actions are hereby consolidated for all purposes,
including pretrial proceedings, trial, and appeal, and are
referred to herein as the “Consolidated Action.”
Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action, or in any
separate action included herein, shall bear the following
IN RE ZILLOW GROUP, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ...