Brado v. Vocera Communications Inc et al
Filing
162
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 161 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING filed by William R. Zerella, Vocera Communications Inc, Robert J. Zollars, Brent D. Lang Status Report due by 10/29/2015. Class Certification Motion Hearing reset for 11/5/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Edward M. Chen. Status Conference reset for 11/5/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/25/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB No. 126930)
smuck@fenwick.com
JENNIFER C. BRETAN (CSB No. 233475)
jbretan@fenwick.com
MARIE C. BAFUS (CSB No. 258417)
mbafus@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.875.2300
Facsimile:
415.281.1350
Attorneys Defendants
Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J. Zollars,
Brent D. Lang and William R. Zerella
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
14
15
IN RE VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 3:13-cv-03567 EMC
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates To:
All Actions.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING
16
Judge: The Honorable Edward M. Chen
17
Date Action Filed: August 1, 2013
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULING
MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-cv--03567 EMC
1
This stipulation is entered into by and among Lead Plaintiffs Baltimore County
2
Employees’ Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (collectively, “Lead
3
Plaintiffs”) and defendants Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J. Zollars, Brent D. Lang and
4
William R. Zerella (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their respective attorneys of
5
record:
6
7
8
9
WHEREAS, the above-captioned consolidated action is a proposed class action alleging
violations of the federal securities laws against Defendants;
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2015, this Court issued a Case Management and Pretrial Order
for Jury Trial (the “Order”) setting certain deadlines in the action [Dkt. No. 152];
anticipated motion for class certification: (i) Lead Plaintiffs’ class certification motion due on or
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
WHEREAS, the Order set the following deadlines associated with Lead Plaintiffs’
11
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
10
before July 15, 2015; (ii) Defendants’ opposition to class certification motion due on or before
13
August 26, 2015; (iii) Lead Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification motion due on or
14
before September 23, 2015; and (iv) hearing on class certification motion set for October 15,
15
2015 at 1:30 p.m.;
16
WHEREAS, in order to accommodate the scheduling availability of Lead Plaintiffs’
17
representatives for deposition, the parties have stipulated and agreed to a one week adjustment in
18
the schedule for certain deadlines associated with class certification as follows:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(i)
Defendants shall file their opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ class certification motion
on or before September 2, 2015;
(ii)
Lead Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class certification motion on or
before September 30, 2015;
WHEREAS, the deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file the class certification motion and the
date set for the hearing on the class certification motion shall not change;
IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, by and between the
undersigned counsel for the parties, that:
(i)
Defendants shall file their opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ class certification motion
on or before September 2, 2015;
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULING
1
MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-cv-03567 EMC
1
2
3
(ii)
Lead Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class certification motion on or
before September 30, 2015;
(iii)
The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion (July 15,
4
2015) and the date and time of the hearing shall remain October 15, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., or such
5
other date as the Court deems appropriate.
6
Dated: June 22, 2015
7
By: /s/ Marie C. Bafus
Marie C. Bafus
8
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
9
10
11
Attorneys for Defendants
Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J. Zollars, Brent
D. Lang and William R. Zerella
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
FENWICK & WEST LLP
13
14
Dated: June 22, 2015
15
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
By: /s/ Shawn A. Williams
Shawn A. Williams
16
19
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
20
Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
17
18
21
Dated: June 22, 2015
22
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
By: /s/ Jonathan Gardner
Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice)
23
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
24
25
26
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Baltimore County
Employees’ Retirement System and Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULING
2
MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-cv-03567 EMC
Dated: June 22, 2015
By: /s/ Marie C. Bafus
Marie C. Bafus
3
***
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER
5
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The motion for class certification
and status conference are reset
for November 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
An updated joint status report shall
be filed by October 29, 2015.
7
8
S
UNIT
ED
Hon. Edward M. Chen
United States District Court Judge
ERED
11
13
O ORD D
IT IS S
DIFIE
AS MO
NO
14
RT
15
16
. Chen
ward M
udge Ed
J
ER
H
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
RT
U
O
10
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
R NIA
9
June 25, 2015
Dated:
FO
6
LI
2
Pursuant to Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all signatories concur in filing this stipulation.
A
1
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULING
3
MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-cv-03567 EMC
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?