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

Filing 84

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/30/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

Stephen D. Hibbard (SBN 177865)
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

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

7

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT BRUCE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

Case No. 3:12-CV-4061-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES

SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO.,
LTD., et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
NO. 3:12-CV-04061-RS

1
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 16-2 and 7-12, lead plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le,

3

and Chen Weifeng (collectively, the “Lead Plaintiffs”) and defendants Suntech Power Holdings

4

Co., Ltd. (“Suntech”), Zhengrong Shi and David King (collectively, the “Defendants,” and

5

together with the Lead Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel, hereby agree and

6

stipulate that good cause exists to request an order from the Court rescheduling the Initial Case

7

Management Conference currently set for September 19, 2013 (pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice

8

dated January 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 55)), and adjusting accordingly the related deadlines set forth in

9

this Court’s August 1, 2012 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR

10

Deadlines (Dkt. No. 5) (the “August 1, 2012 Order”).

11

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, the initial putative class action complaint in this

12

consolidated action was filed against Defendants Suntech, Zhengrong Shi, David King, and Amy

13

Yi Zhang, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange

14

Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

WHEREAS, pursuant to the August 1, 2012 Order, the Initial Case Management
Conference was set for November 1, 2012;
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Stipulation and Order dated October 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 33),
the Initial Case Management Conference was continued to February 14, 2013;
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in this action;
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Court consolidated this action with other related
actions for pre-trial purposes;
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and Suntech filed a Stipulation and

24

Proposed Order seeking adjournment of the February 14, 2013 date for the Initial Case

25

Management Conference;

26
27
28

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice dated January 24, 2013, the Initial Case
Management Conference was continued to September 19, 2013;
WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
No. 3:12-CV-04061-RS

2

1

“Amended Complaint”) was filed on February 5, 2013;

2
3

WHEREAS Suntech filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 8, 2013
and defendants Shi and King filed motions to dismiss on June 28, 2013;

4
5

WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Defendants’ motions to
dismiss on August 5, 2013;

6
7

WHEREAS the Defendants’ replies in further support of their motions to dismiss are due
to be filed on September 18, 2013;

8
9

WHEREAS oral argument on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss is set for October 3,
2013;

10

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

11

and the Parties’ resources, it would be prudent to defer the initial case management conference and

12

the completion of initial disclosures until after completion of briefing, oral argument and the

13

Court’s decision on the Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss; and

14

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

15

discussions about discovery at this time is proper because the PSLRA generally stays all discovery

16

and other proceedings, including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions to dismiss

17

in securities actions such as this one. See Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325,

18

328-29 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding F.R.C.P. 26(a)’s initial disclosure requirements are disclosures or

19

other proceedings for purposes of PSLRA’s stay provision, and must be stayed pending disposition

20

of motion to dismiss).

21
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Lead Plaintiffs and
the Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, subject to Court approval, as follows:

23
24

1.

or such other date as may be ordered by the Court.

25
26
27
28

The Initial Case Management Conference is continued until December 12, 2013,

2.

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

3.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of the

relief.

Defendants’ rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that any of the
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
No. 3:12-CV-04061-RS

3

1
2
3
4

Defendants would otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.
4.

The Lead Plaintiffs and Suntech have sought two other continuations of the Initial

Case Management Conference and related deadlines.
5.

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

5

proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates because the Court has

6

yet to schedule these dates.

7

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

8

Parties’ request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines as set

9

forth in the following [Proposed] Order.

10

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

11

Dated: August 29, 2013

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
/s/ Daniel S. Sommers
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]
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]
Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James
Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
No. 3:12-CV-04061-RS

4

1
2

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

3

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

4
5
6

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

7
8
9

Dated: August 29, 2013
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP

10

/s/ Jerome S. Fortinsky

11

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]

12
13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19

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

20
21
22
23
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

8/30/13

25
26
27

______________________________
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
No. 3:12-CV-04061-RS

5