Fishbury, Limited et al v. Connetics Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER re 9 Stipulation, filed by John C. Kane, Connetics Corporation, Denise M. Gilbert, Carl B. Feldbaum, Leon Panetta, Lincoln Krochmal, Thomas D. Kiley, C. Gregory Vontz, Andrew Eckert, John Higgins, G. Kirk Raab, Eugene A. Bauer, Thomas G. Wiggans. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 6/25/07. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2007)

Download PDF
Fishbury, Limited et al v. Connetics Corporation et al Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv-02940-SI Document 10 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB NO. 126930) DEAN S. KRISTY (CSB NO. 157646) CHRISTOPHER J. STESKAL (CSB NO. 212297) KALAMA M. LUI-KWAN (CSB NO. 242121) EMILY ST. JOHN COHEN (CSB NO. 239674) FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 smuck@fenwick.com dkristy@fenwick.com csteskal@fenwick.com klui-kwan@fenwick.com ecohen@fenwick.com Attorneys for Defendants Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, John Higgins, Lincoln Krochmal, Eugene A. Bauer, R. Andrew Eckert, Carl B. Felbaum, Denise M. Gilbert, John C. Kane, Thomas D. Kiley, Leon E. Panetta, and G. Kirk Raab UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C 07-02940 SI In re CONNETICS SECURITIES LITIGATION STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE This Stipulation is entered into by and among lead plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma ("Plaintiff") and defendants Connetics Corp. ("Connetics"), Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, John Higgins, Lincoln Krochmal, Eugene A. Bauer, R. Andrew Eckert, Carl B. Felbaum, Denise M. Gilbert, John C. Kane, Thomas D. Kiley, Leon E. Panetta, G. Kirk Raab, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky ("Defendants"). WHEREAS, on June 6, 2007, this consolidated action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to file an amended consolidated complaint; STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 07-02940 SI Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:07-cv-02940-SI Document 10 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O WHEREAS, Defendants intend to move to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim; and WHEREAS, the parties believe that the resources of the Court and the parties are best conserved, and the interests of judicial economy are best served, by stipulating to a schedule for Plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint and Defendants' motion to dismiss; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-1, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, as follows: 1. 28, 2007. 2. Defendants will file and serve their respective motions to dismiss the amended Plaintiff will file and serve an amended consolidated complaint on or before June consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim on or before August 6, 2007. 3. Plaintiff will file and serve its opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss on or 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 before September 10, 2007. 4. Defendants will file and serve their respective replies in support of their motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on or before September 27, 2007. 5. The parties request that the Court schedule a hearing on Defendants' motions to dismiss on the earliest available date. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-1, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, that the parties may enter into and submit a further appropriate stipulation amending this filing. // // // // // // // STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE 2 CASE NO. C 07-02940 SI Case 3:07-cv-02940-SI Document 10 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 21, 2007 FENWICK & WEST LLP By: /s/ Christopher J. Steskal 555 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 Attorneys for Defendants Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, John Higgins, Lincoln Krochmal, Eugene A. Bauer, R. Andrew Eckert, Carl B. Felbaum, Denise M. Gilbert, John C. Kane, Thomas D. Kiley, Leon E. Panetta, G. Kirk Raab Dated: June 21, 2007 DLA PIPER US LLP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE 3 By: /s/ Alysson Russell Snow 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2858 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 Attorneys for Defendant Alexander J. Yaroshinsky Dated: June 21, 2007 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP By: /s/ David R. Stickney 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Telephone: (858) 793-0070 Facsimile: (858) 793-0323 Attorneys for Plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma and Court Appointed Lead Counsel for the Class CASE NO. C 07-02940 SI Case 3:07-cv-02940-SI Document 10 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from Alysson Russell Snow and David R. Stickney. * * * PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 6/25 DATED: ______________ 2007 THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25251/00402/LIT/1268961.1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE 4 CASE NO. C 07-02940 SI

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?