UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: PG&E CORPORATION No. 22-16711 SECURITIES LITIGATION, D.C. No. ------------------------------ 5:18-cv-03509- EJD PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO, The Class; YORK OPINION COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND; CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; MID-JERSEY TRUCKING INDUSTRY & LOCAL NO. 701 PENSION FUND,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. ANTHONY F. EARLEY, Jr.; GEISHA J. WILLIAMS; NICKOLAS STAVROPOULOS; JULIE M. KANE; CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS; PATRICK M. HOGAN; BARBARA L. RAMBO; DAVID S. THOMASON; DINYAR B. MISTRY; 2 PERA V. EARLEY

LEWIS CHEW; FRED J. FOWLER; MARYELLEN C. HERRINGER; RICHARD C. KELLY; ROGER H. KIMMEL; RICHARD A. MESERVE; FORREST E. MILLER; BARRY LAWSON WILLIAMS; ROSENDO G. PARRA; ANNE SHEN SMITH; ERIC D. MULLINS; BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORPORATION; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS, INC.; WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., AKA Siebert Williams Shank Co., LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC, AKA B of A Securities, Inc.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; TD SECURITIES (USA), LLC; C. L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC.; GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES; CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP.; SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.; U. S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC.; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; PERA V. EARLEY 3

BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC; SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; MFR SECURITIES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees, and PG&E CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 13, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed May 3, 2024 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Danny J. Boggs,* and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Forrest

* The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 4 PERA V. EARLEY

SUMMARY**

Bankruptcy Stay

The panel vacated the district court’s order staying a securities fraud action pending completion of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and remanded. A group of retirement and pension funds filed a consolidated putative securities class action against PG&E Corp. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (collectively, PG&E) and some of its current and former officers, directors, and bond underwriters (collectively, Individual Defendants). PG&E filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, automatically staying this action as against PG&E but not the Individual Defendants. The district court then sua sponte stayed these proceedings as against the Individual Defendants. The panel held that it had jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the Moses H. Cone doctrine because the stay was both indefinite and likely to be lengthy. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the stay as to the Individual Defendants. When deciding to issue a docket management stay, the district court must weigh three non-exclusive factors: (1) the possible damage that may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity that a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) judicial efficiency. As to judicial efficiency, the district court properly concluded that the bankruptcy court’s initial determination of identical ** This