Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al
Filing
295
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 294 EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER filed by VeriFone Systems, Inc., Douglas G. Bergeron. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/3/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Robert A. Sacks (SBN 150146)
(sacksr@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone:
(310) 712-6600
Facsimile:
(310) 712-8800
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
(hogbergs@sullcrom.com)
Nathaniel L. Green (SBN 260568)
(greenn@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone:
(650) 461-5600
Facsimile:
(650) 461-5700
Attorneys for VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC.
and Douglas Bergeron
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In re VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Master File No. 3:07-cv-06140 EMC
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
Assigned to: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Courtroom 5
Date Action Filed: December 4, 2007
23
24
25
26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-CV-06140
WHEREAS, on September, 15, 2010, lead plaintiff National Elevator Industry Pension
1
2
Fund (“plaintiff”) filed its Third Amended Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. #262);
3
4
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2010, defendants VeriFone Systems, Inc., Douglas Bergeron,
and Barry Zwarenstein (collectively, “defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s Third
5
6
Amended Complaint (Dkt. #264);
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the Hon. Marilyn H. Patel issued an Amended
7
8
Memorandum and Order Re: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint,
9
granting defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissing plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint with
10
prejudice (“Order Granting Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. #275);
11
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Patel’s Order
12
Granting Motion to Dismiss with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) (Dkt.
13
14
#282);
15
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed, in part, the Order
16
Granting Motion to Dismiss, and reinstated plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Case No. 11-15860,
17
Dkt. #58);
18
19
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants’ petition for
rehearing en banc (Case No. 11-15860, Dkt. #61);
20
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate in accordance with
21
22
Fed. R. App. Proc. 41 and Ninth Cir. Rule 41-1 & -2 remanding the action back to the District Court;
23
WHEREAS, the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference on February 26, 2013;
24
WHEREAS, defendants requested, and plaintiff agreed, to extend the time for defendants
25
to answer so that the parties could prepare for and participate in a mediation, which took place on March
26
26, 2013;
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between plaintiff
and defendants, by and through their respective counsel, that:
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-CV-06140
1
2
1.
Defendants will file their answers to the plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on
or before April 30, 2013.
3
4
DATED: April 1, 2013
5
6
7
8
9
/s/ Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
Nathaniel L. Green (SBN 260568)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303-3308
Telephone: (650) 461-5600
Facsimile: (650) 461-5700
Robert A. Sacks (SBN 150146)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-1725
Telephone: (310) 712-6640
Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
10
11
12
Attorneys for VeriFone Systems, Inc. and Douglas
Bergeron
13
14
15
DATED: April 1, 2013
19
/s/ Jordan Eth
Jordan Eth (SBN 121617)
D. Anthony Rodriguez (SBN 162587)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
20
Attorneys for Barry Zwarenstein
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DATED: April 1, 2013
/s/ Christopher P. Seefer
Christopher P. Seefer (SBN 201197)
Christopher M. Wood (SBN 254908)
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff National Elevator
Industry Pension Fund
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-CV-06140
I, Brendan P. Cullen, am the ECF user whose User ID and Password are being used to
1
2
file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER. In
3
compliance with General Order 45, X.B, I hereby attest that the other signatories listed have concurred
4
in this filing.
5
6
Dated: April 1, 2013
/s/ Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
Sverker K. Hogberg (SBN 244640)
Nathaniel L. Green (SBN 260568)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303-3308
Telephone: (650) 461-5600
Facsimile: (650) 461-5700
7
8
9
10
11
Robert A. Sacks (CSB 150146)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-1725
Telephone: (310) 712-6640
Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
12
13
14
15
Attorneys for VeriFone Systems, Inc. and
Douglas Bergeron
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-CV-06140
S
3
n
M. Che
Edward
THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
RT
6
FO
NO
5
4/3/13
H
ER
LI
4
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
R NIA
UNIT
ED
THE FOREGOING STIPULATION
IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
2
ORDER
7
8
A
1
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SULLIVAN
&
CROMWELL LLP
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-CV-06140
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?