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)

Download PDF
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?