Friday, March 24, 2017
RULING AND ORDERS: The Court addresses herein multiple pending motions. First, the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 41] is DENIED because it does not address the operative complaint. The Court will consider the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 61] the operative complaint in due course. Second, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' memorandum, [ECF No. 68-1], the order granting motion for default entry under Rule 55(a) as to GAW Miners, LLC and Zenminer, LLC [ECF No. 65], including the deadline to file a motion for default judgment by March 1, 2017, is VACATED , and the motion for default entry as to GAW Miners, LLC and Zenminer, LLC with respect to the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED . The request for extension of time in [ECF No. 68] is DENIED as moot. The motion to certify class and motion for default judgment [ECF No. 69] are DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Any renewed motion for default judgment and/or to certify class with respect to the defaulting defendants shall address not only whether the Court's ruling on such motions before ruling on the motion to dismiss would violate the stay provision of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3), including any applicable precedents within the Second Circuit, but also (a) whether entering a default judgment as to some defendants before the case is concluded as to all defendants would, under the circumstances of this case, violate the principles set forth in Frow v. De La Vega , 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) or otherwise risk the possibility of inconsistent judgments, see Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Watson , 2012 WL 4097731 (D. Conn. Sept. 10, 2012), and (b) whether it would serve the interest of judicial economy to entertain class certification proceedings with respect to the defaulting defendants and then, should the court deny some or all of the motion to dismiss by Defendant Fraser, potentially do so again with respect to him. The Court notes that a brief review of the amended complaint suggests that it sets forth separate claims for relief against Mr. Fraser and the defaulting defendants, but that some of the issues in those claims may overlap (e.g., falsity of statements). Especially in light of the concerns raised by Frow , the Plaintiffs are not required to renew these motions promptly and may, if they choose, wait to do so until after the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss (which would obviate the need to address the stay issue) and/or after the Court enters any judgment with respect to Defendant Fraser. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/24/2017. (Howard, H.)
