Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd et al

Filing 33

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 32 TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND DEFENDANT'S TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/14/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/30/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2012)

Case3:12-cv-04061-RS Document32 Filed10/29/12 Page1 of 7

1

5

LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180)
MICHAEL M. GOLDBERG (#188669)
ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796)
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

6

Counsel for Plaintiff Scott Bruce

2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SCOTT BRUCE, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO.
LTD., ZHENGRONG SHI, DAVID KING,
AND AMY YIZHANG,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-CV-4061-RS

STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, RESET
RELATED DEADLINES AND
EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME
TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
AS MODIFIED BY COURT
[Civil L.R. 16-2, 7-12]
DATE: November 1, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
COURTROOM: 3
Honorable Richard Seeborg

Case3:12-cv-04061-RS Document32 Filed10/29/12 Page2 of 7

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 16-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Scott Bruce (“Plaintiff”) and

2 Defendant Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Suntech”) hereby agree and
3 stipulate that good cause exists to request an order from the Court rescheduling the Initial Case
4 Management Conference currently set for November 1, 2012, pursuant to this Court’s August 1,
5 2012 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (DE 5) (the “August
6 1, 2012 Order”), and to adjust accordingly the related deadlines set forth therein.
7
8

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint

9 (“Complaint”), against Defendants Suntech, Zhengrong Shi (“Shi”), David King (“King”), and
10 Amy Yi Zhang (“Zhang”) (Shi, King, and Zhang are collectively referred to herein as the
11 “Individual Defendants”) for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
12 (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
13

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2012, a similar putative class action complaint was filed in

14 this Court asserting the same or substantially similar claims against Suntech and the Individual
15 Defendants, captioned, Le v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., et al., 12-cv-04655-YGR.
16

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, a similar putative class action complaint was filed in the

17 United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting the same or
18 substantially similar claims against, among others, Suntech and the Individual Defendants,
19 captioned, Henisz v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., et al., C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-06628-JAK.
20

WHEREAS, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”),

21 when a putative class action alleging securities fraud is filed, a process must be followed whereby
22 the plaintiff gives notice to the putative class, motion(s) for appointment of lead plaintiff are filed,
23 and the Court appoints lead plaintiff(s) and approves the selection of lead counsel. 15 U.S.C. §
24 78u-4(a).
25

WHEREAS, Plaintiff provided notice to the putative class, and on October 1, 2012,

26 various motions for consolidation of the related actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval
27 of selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel were filed.
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
No. 3:12-cv-04061-RS
Page 2

Case3:12-cv-04061-RS Document32 Filed10/29/12 Page3 of 7

1

WHEREAS, a hearing on the motions to consolidate related actions and for appointment

2 of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel is currently set for
3 November 8, 2012.
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff anticipates that the actions will be consolidated and that the lead

5 plaintiff will accordingly need to file a consolidated amended complaint.
6

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2012, Plaintiff served Defendant Suntech with the summons

7 and Complaint in this action.
8

WHEREAS, the Individual Defendants have not yet been served or appeared in this

9 action.
10

WHEREAS, the August 1, 2012 Order directed the parties to meet, confer and complete

11 initial disclosures on October 11, 2012.
12

WHEREAS, the parties believe that, in order to avoid the needless waste of the Court’s

13 and the parties’ resources, it would be prudent to defer the initial case management conference and
14 the completion of initial disclosures until the lead plaintiff has been appointed, the lead plaintiff’s
15 selection of lead counsel has been approved, the lead plaintiff has filed a consolidated amended
16 complaint, Suntech has had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss, and the Court has ruled
17 on Suntech’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
18

WHEREAS, the Parties further believe that postponement of initial disclosures and any

19 discussions about discovery at this time is proper because the PSLRA stays all discovery and other
20 proceedings, including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions to dismiss in
21 securities actions such as this one. See Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 32822 29 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding F.R.C.P. 26(a)’s initial disclosure requirements are disclosures or other
23 proceedings for purposes of PSLRA’s stay provision, and must be stayed pending disposition of
24 motion to dismiss).
25

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the

26 parties hereto, that:
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
No. 3:12-cv-04061-RS
Page 3

Case3:12-cv-04061-RS Document32 Filed10/29/12 Page4 of 7

1

1.

Suntech need not answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this

2 action until a date to be set following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
3 §78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing by such lead plaintiff of a consolidated amended complaint.
4

2.

The Initial Case Management Conference shall be held 30 days after an order

5 directing Suntech to file an answer (if any), or as soon as possible thereafter consistent with the
6 Court’s schedule.
7

3.

This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

4.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Suntech’s

8 relief.
9

10 rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Suntech would otherwise
11 have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.
12

5.

The Parties have not sought any other extensions of time in this action.

13

6.

The Parties do not seek to reset these dates for the purpose of delay, and the

14 proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as the Court has yet to
15 schedule these dates.
16

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court issue an order granting the

17 parties’ request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines as set forth
18 in the following [Proposed] Order.
19

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

20

Dated: October 29, 2012

21

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

25

By: /s/ Michael Goldberg___
Michael M. Goldberg
Lionel Z. Glancy
Robert V. Prongay
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26

Counsel for Plaintiff Scott Bruce

22
23
24

27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
No. 3:12-cv-04061-RS
Page 4

Case3:12-cv-04061-RS Document32 Filed10/29/12 Page5 of 7

1

Dated: October 29, 2012

2
3

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
By: s/Stephen D. Hibbard
Stephen D. Hibbard
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

4
5
6
7

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Jerome S. Fortinsky
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9
10
11

Counsel for Defendant Suntech Power Holdings
Co., Ltd.

12
13
14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Initial Case Management Conference to be held February 14, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., unless otherwise
ordered.

17

DATED: 10/30/12

18
19

Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND EXTEND THE DEFENDANT’S TIME TO ANSWER
OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
No. 3:12-cv-04061-RS
Page 5