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)

Download PDF
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?