Sausman v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al
Filing
12
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/29/14 ORDERING the Court ADOPTS the above stipulation 11 in its entirety, except that the parties are ORDERED to submit joint status reports informing the Court of the sta tus of this case every sixty (60) days starting from the date this order is electronically filed until the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and the establishment of a date to provide the Court with the Joint Status report required by the Court's September 8, 2014, Order (ECF No. 2). (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617)
JEth@mofo.com
JUDSON E. LOBDELL (BAR NO. 146041)
JLobdell@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone:
415.268.7000
Facsimile:
415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendants
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G.
MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD,
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
PAUL SAUSMAN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.,
PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J.
GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING RESPONSES
Case No. 2:14-cv-02072-MCE-KJN
sf-3470798
Case No.
2:14-cv-02072-MCE-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER
DEFERRING DEADLINES TO
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
Judge:
Hon. Morrison C. England
Date Filed: Sept. 8, 2014
Trial Date: None Set
1
2
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 144 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, the parties hereby
stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows:
3
WHEREAS, this securities class action lawsuit was instituted in this district on
4
September 8, 2014, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
5
traded securities of Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (“Marrone”) between March 7, 2014, and
6
September 2, 2014;
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WHEREAS, this securities class action lawsuit is governed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (the “Reform Act”);
WHEREAS, a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B) of the Reform Act;
WHEREAS, the undersigned parties anticipate that, following the appointment of Lead
Plaintiff, a consolidated complaint will be filed;
WHEREAS, the Court issued an Order Requiring Joint Status Report on September 8,
14
2014 (Dkt. No. 2) setting deadlines for the parties’ conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f);
15
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have met and conferred and agreed that the due date
16
for defendants’ responses to the complaint and the filing of a joint status report should be deferred
17
until a lead plaintiff is appointed;
18
19
WHEREAS, the agreed-upon extension is not for the purpose of delay, promotes judicial
efficiency, and will not cause prejudice to either party;
20
WHEREAS, no previous extension of this deadline has been sought;
21
NOW, THEREFORE, in the interest of judicial economy and good cause showing, the
22
parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate, and the
23
Court hereby orders, as follows:
24
1. Without prejudice to any parties’ right to seek interim relief, Defendants shall have no
25
obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until after the Court appoints a lead
26
plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Reform Act.
27
28
2. Defendants will meet and confer with the court-appointed lead counsel within twenty
(20) days following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to (a) confirm whether
STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING RESPONSES
Case No. 2:14-cv-02072-MCE-KJN
sf-3470798
1
1
the lead plaintiff will file a new complaint that supersedes all previously filed complaints or deem
2
the existing complaint operative; (b) establish a common response date for all defendants,
3
including a briefing schedule on defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss and (c) establish a
4
date to provide the Court with the Joint Status report as set forth in the Order of September 8,
5
2014.
6
Dated: October 24, 2014
7
By:
8
9
11
12
13
Attorneys for Defendants
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC.,
PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J.
GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD
14
15
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
By: /s/ Willow E. Radcliffe as authorized on
10/24/2014
Willow E. Radcliffe
16
17
18
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415/288-4545
415/288-4534 (fax)
19
20
21
22
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAUL SAUSMAN
23
25
26
27
28
/s/ Judson E. Lobdell
Judson E. Lobdell
JORDAN ETH
JUDSON E. LOBDELL
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
10
24
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING RESPONSES
Case No. 2:14-cv-02072-MCE-KJN
sf-3470798
2
1
2
ORDER
The Court ADOPTS the above stipulation (ECF No. 11) in its entirety, except that the
3
parties are ORDERED to submit joint status reports informing the Court of the status of this case
4
every sixty (60) days starting from the date this order is electronically filed until the appointment
5
of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and the establishment of a date to provide the Court with the
6
Joint Status report required by the Court’s September 8, 2014, Order (ECF No. 2). Failure to
7
comply with this Order may result in the issuance of monetary sanctions on counsel for all parties
8
and/or dismissal of this action, without further notice to the parties, for noncompliance with court
9
orders and/or for failure to prosecute pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control its
10
11
12
docket and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2014
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING RESPONSES
Case No. 2:14-cv-02072-MCE-KJN
sf-3470798
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?