Coffey v. Thomas

Docket 1:25-cv-02242

Filed
2025-03-18
Terminated
2025-04-30
Case type
cv

Outcome

voluntarily dismissed

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=08 OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2502242 FILEDATE=03/18/2025 DISP=12, PROCPROG=1, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        April 18, 2025 The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1106 New York, New York 10007 Re: In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06132; Coffey v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02242; Figurella v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02513 Dear Judge Schofield: Per the Court’s March 27, 2025 and April 1, 2025 orders in the above-captioned matters, the parties have conferred and agree that Coffey v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02242 (S.D.N.Y.) and Figurella v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02513 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Related Derivative Actions”) should not be consolidated with In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06132 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Securities Class Action”). See In re Bear Stearns Cos. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 2009 WL 50132, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009) (holding that “the Derivative Action should not be consolidated with the Securities Action” and noting that “reasonable coordination for pretrial purposes” may later be appropriate). To promote efficiency, the parties in the Related Derivative Actions agree that: (i) the Related Derivative Actions should be consolidated; (ii) leadership motions for Plaintiffs in the anticipated consolidated derivative action should be filed on May 1, 2025, responses should be filed by May 15, 2025, and replies should be filed by May 29, 2025; (iii) within 30 days of the Court’s ruling on such motions, the parties will submit a proposal regarding further proceedings; and (iv) Defendants need not answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the Related Derivative Actions until after the Court has entered an order regarding further proceedings. The parties in the Related Derivative Action respectfully request that the Court enter an order approving the terms of the parties’ agreement. The plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action take no position on these issues relating to the Related Derivative Actions. We thank the Court for its attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, POMERANTZ LLP THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Christopher P.T. Tourek /s/ Timothy Brown Joshua B. Silverman Timothy Brown (pro hac vice forthcoming) Saadia Hashmi Christopher P.T. Tourek Elizabeth Donohoe (admitted pro hac vice) 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 Diego Martinez-Krippner New York, NY 10017 (admitted pro hac vice) Tel: (516) 922-5427 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Fax: (516) 344-6204 Chicago, Illinois 60603 tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net Tel: (312) 377-1181 shashmi@thebrownlawfirm.net Fax: (312) 229-8811 edonohoe@thebrownlawfirm.net jbsilverman@pomlaw.com ctourek@pomlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Sara Beth Coffey dmartinezk@pomlaw.com Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action COOLEY LLP THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. /s/ Aric H. Wu /s/ Phillip Kim Aric H. Wu Phillip Kim Sarah M. Topol Erica L. Stone 55 Hudson Yards 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10001 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 479-6000 Tel: (212) 686-1060 ahwu@cooley.com Fax: (212) 202-3827 stopol@cooley.com philkim@rosenlegal.com estone@rosenlegal.com Koji F. Fukumura (pro hac vice in Securities Class Action and pro hac vice forthcoming in Counsel for Plaintiff Ray Figurella Related Derivative Actions) 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (858) 550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com Counsel for Defendants in the Securities Class Action and Related Derivative Actions The Plaintiffs 25cv2242 and 25cv2513 shall file leadership motions by May 1, 2025. Responses shall be filed by May 15, 2025, and replies shall be filed by May 29, 2025. Within 30 days of the Court’s ruling on such motions, the parties shall submit a joint proposal regarding further proceedings. Defendants need not answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the Related Derivative Actions until after the Court has entered an order regarding further proceedings. So Ordered. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to docket this Order in all three cases referenced above. Dated: April 22, 2025 New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.