Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SELECTION AS LEAD COUNSEL. Plaintiff shall file his Consolidated Amended Complaint no later than January 2, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 2, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

YUVAL LAPINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAMTEK, LTD., et al., Defendants. /

No. C-08-1327 MMC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SELECTION AS LEAD COUNSEL

Before the Court is lead plaintiff Yuval Lapiner's ("Lapiner") motion, filed October 31, 2008, by which Lapiner seeks approval of his selection of counsel as lead counsel, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), and by which Lapiner requests an extension of time, of 30 days, in which to file his Consolidated Amended Complaint. Defendants have filed a "Statement of Position," by which defendants do not oppose either the proposed approval or extension, provided Lapiner is not granted further leave to amend following the filing of his Consolidated Amended Complaint and defendants are granted 45 days in which to respond to such complaint.1 Lapiner has filed a reply. Having read and considered the parties' respective submissions, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision thereon, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for

No potential class member has filed opposition to Lapiner's motion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

December 5, 2008, and, good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS the motion as follows: 1. Lapiner's selection of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP as lead counsel is hereby APPROVED. 2. Lapiner shall file his Consolidated Amended Complaint no later than January 2, 2009. 3. Defendants' request that the Court condition the above-ordered relief on a denial of further leave to amend is DENIED; if further leave to amend is sought, the Court will, at that time, consider whether good cause for such additional relief has been shown. 4. Defendants' request that the Court condition the above-ordered relief on defendants' proposed extension of time in which to answer or otherwise respond is DENIED, for the reason that defendants have failed to show good cause for such extension; if, after the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, defendants can show good cause for an extension, defendants may file a stipulation to enlarge time, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, or a motion to change time, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2008

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2