ALEMAN
v.
SANCHEZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied the motion to consolidate, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead counsel because the motion was premature as defendants had not yet been served and the motion improperly attacked the standing of a plaintiff in a related, closed case.
Plaintiff John Aleman filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Ryder System, Inc. against its senior executives for breach of fiduciary duty and unju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Consolidate cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff John Aleman’s Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, Appoint Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Lead and Liaison Counsel, ECF No. (“Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff John Aleman filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint, ECF No. (“Complaint”), on behalf of Nominal Defendant Ryder System, Inc. (“Ryder”), against several of Ryder’s senior executives (“Individual Defendants”).1 The Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II), and breach of fiduciary duty for insider
Ryder to dramatically understate depreciation expense, overstate profits, and increase incentive compensation, and to violate Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), which in turn artificially inflated Ryder’s stock price. Also pending before this Court is another shareholder derivative action, Alan Campbell v. Robert E. Sanchez, et al., Case No. 21-cv-20203-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (“Campbell”), which is based on the same underlying operative facts, and asserts similar causes of action on behalf of Ryder against all but one of the same Individual Defendants.2 In addition, there is a putative securities class action captioned State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, et al. v. Ryder System, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-cv-22109-CANNON/Otazo-
Reyes (“Class Action”). The Class Action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and names Ryder System, Inc. Robert E. Sanchez, Art A. Garcia, and Dennis C. Cooke as defendants. See Class Action, ECF No. (“Amended Complaint”). The claims and allegations in the Class Action are substantially similar to those raised in the Complaint filed in this action and in Campbell. A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is currently pending in the Class Action. In Campbell, the parties jointly moved for a stay pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Class Action, recognizing that the cases are related, and that the resolution of the issues
derivative claims on Ryder’s behalf because he has not continuously held stock during the Relevant Period. In addition, Plaintiff contends that this case and Campbell are clearly related, involve substantially the same parties and the same facts, and therefore that consolidation is appropriate under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further requests that he be appointed to serve as sole lead plaintiff and that his counsel be chosen to lead the consolidated derivative action on behalf of Ryder.3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . join for hearing or trial any or all the matters at issue in the actions; . . . consolidate the actions; or . . . issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1)-(3). Rule 42(a) codifies the district court’s “inherent managerial power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F. 3d 1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted). A decision to consolidate cases is discretionary. Blitz Telecom Consulting, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., 727 F. App’x 562, 570 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Young, 59 F. 3d at 1168). Upon review, the Motion is due to be denied at this juncture because it is premature. A review of the docket in this case reveals that none of the Defendants has been served with process.
Thus, although the Motion makes the representation that “Counsel for Defendants ... took no position concerning plaintiff leadership and agreed the Related Actions should be consolidated ..., no appearances have been entered on behalf of any Defendants in this case, and Defendants currently are under no obligation to respond to the Motion. Moreover, the Court notes that the Motion improperly seeks to attack the standing of the plaintiff in Campbell—an argument that even the Defendants in Campbell have not made—and Plaintiff has not cited to any authority to support his attempt to question the Campbell plaintiff's standing by way of a motion to consolidate in a separate case. In addition, consolidation at this juncture would further be improper because Campbell is closed. See Mainstream Advert., Inc. v. Moniker Online Servs., LLC, No. 17-cv-22714-BLOOM/Valle, 2017 WL 9672798, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017) (noting that consolidation is improper where one case was closed, and denying motion to consolidate). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. , is DENIED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 10, 2021.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record