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

Filing 74

STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS SHI AND KING TO RESPOND TO CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT SUNTECH'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/5/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2013)

1 Stephen D. Hibbard (SBN 117865)
[e-mail]
2 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-5994
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Counsel for Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.,
Zhengrong Shi and David King
6
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
SCOTT BRUCE, Individually and on Behalf of
10 All Others Similarly Situated,
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

13 SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,
ZHENGRONG SHI, DAVID KING, and AMY
14 YI ZHANG,
15

Case No. 3:12-CV-4061-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR
DEFENDANTS SHI AND KING TO
RESPOND TO CONSOLIDATED
AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT AND MODIFYING
SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT
SUNTECH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
SCHEDULE FOR DEFS. SHI & KING TO RESPOND TO CAC

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

1

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2013, defendant Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

2 (“Suntech”) moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 62) the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
3 (the “Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 56) filed by lead plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le, and Chen
4 Weifeng (collectively, the “Lead Plaintiffs”) in this action;
5

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Regarding Pretrial Scheduling,

6 dated December 17, 2012 (Dkt. No. 53), the Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to Suntech’s motion to
7 dismiss is due to be filed on or before June 7, 2013 and Suntech’s reply in further support of its
8 motion to dismiss is due to be filed on July 8, 2013;
9

WHEREAS, on March 15, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Authorize

10 Alternative Service of Two Individual Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11 4(f)(3) (the “Service Motion”) (Dkt. No. 57);
12

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Service

13 Motion (Dkt. No. 70), thereby permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to serve defendants Dr. Zhengrong
14 Shi (“Shi”) and Mr. David King (“King”) “through defendant Suntech’s registered agent located in
15 New York, New York, and through Suntech’s U.S. headquarters (‘Suntech America’) and Suntech
16 America’s registered agent, both of which are located in San Francisco, California”;
17

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs delivered copies of the Summons

18 and Complaint to defendants Shi and King through Suntech America;
19

WHEREAS, on May 29, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Deem Service

20 Effective Upon Defendants Zhengrong Shi and David King (the “Motion to Deem Service
21 Effective”) (Dkt. No. 71);
22

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2013, defendants’ undersigned counsel notified the Lead

23 Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of defendants Shi and King, that they would not be contesting the
24 adequacy of service, and thus that there is no need for further proceedings on Lead Plaintiffs’
25 Motion to Deem Service Effective;
26

WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs and defendants Shi and King, through their

27 respective undersigned counsel, have conferred and agreed on a date for defendants Shi and King
28 to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Complaint and on the dates for briefing
STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
1
SCHEDULE FOR DEFS. SHI & KING TO RESPOND TO CAC

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

1 any such motions to dismiss;
WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs and defendants Suntech, Shi and King (collectively,

2

3 the “Defendants”), through their respective undersigned counsel, have further agreed to modify the
4 schedule for remaining briefing on Suntech’s motion to dismiss as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants have agreed that the proposed

5

6 schedule should, to the extent possible, avoid conflict with Defendants’ counsels’ previously
7 scheduled family summer vacation plans;
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Lead

8

9 Plaintiffs and the Defendants, through their respective undersigned counsel, subject to Court
10 approval, as follows:
1.

11

Defendants Shi and King shall answer, move to dismiss or otherwise

12 respond to the Complaint on or before June 28, 2013;
2.

13

The Lead Plaintiffs shall file a single consolidated opposition to Suntech’s

14 motion to dismiss and any motions to dismiss filed by defendants Shi and/or King on or before
15 August 5, 2013. The consolidated opposition shall not exceed in length the combined number of
16 pages of the opening briefs filed by Suntech, Shi and/or King;
3.

17

The Defendants shall file their respective replies in further support of their

18 motions to dismiss on or before September 18, 2013; and
4.

19

The Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Service Effective is hereby denied as

20 moot.
21 /
/
22 /
/
23 /
/
24 /
/
25 /
/
26 /
/
27 /
/
28 /
STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
2
SCHEDULE FOR DEFS. SHI & KING TO RESPOND TO CAC

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

1 DATED: June 4, 2013
2

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
By:

3

/s/ Jerome S. Fortinsky

Jerome S. Fortinsky (admitted pro hac vice)
H. Miriam Farber (admitted pro hac vice)
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

Stephen D. Hibbard
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9
10
11

Counsel for Defendants Suntech Power
Holdings Co., Ltd., Zhengrong Shi and
David King

12
13
14
15

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC

16

By:

17

Steven J. Toll
Daniel S. Sommers (admitted pro hac vice)
Joshua M. Kolsky
Elizabeth Aniskevich
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

18
19
20
21
22

DATED: June 4, 2013

/s/ Daniel S. Sommers

27

POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD
DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom (admitted pro hac vice)
Joshua B. Silverman (admitted pro hac vice)
Louis C. Ludwig (admitted pro hac vice)
10 South LaSalle St., Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

28

Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James
Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng

23
24
25
26

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
3
SCHEDULE FOR DEFS. SHI & KING TO RESPOND TO CAC

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

1
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

2

Michael M. Goldberg
Lionel Z. Glancy
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

3
4
5
6

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James
Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng

7
8

9 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
DATED: 6/5/13
11
12
13

_____________________________
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
4
SCHEDULE FOR DEFS. SHI & KING TO RESPOND TO CAC

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