Shannon v. Melo et al

Filing 16

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR AMENDING COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT re 15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/18/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

STEVE SHANNON, derivatively on behalf
of AMYRIS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13

15
16
17
18
19
20

JOHN G. MELO, ARTHUR LEVINSON,
RALPH ALEXANDER, PHILIPPE
BOISSEAU, JOHN DOERR, GEOFFREY
DUYK, SAMIR KAUL, PATRICK
PICHETTE, CAROLE PIWNICA, KEITH
KINKEAD REILING, FERNANDO
REINACH, NEIL RENNINGER, PETER
BOYNTON, JOEL CHERRY, JERYL
HILLEMAN, JEFFERSON LIEVENSE,
TAMARA TOMPKINS, and MARIO
PORTELA,

23
24

Filed:

August 8, 2013

Defendants,

21
22

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR
AMENDING COMPLAINT AND
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT

v.

14

Case No. 3:13-cv-03694-WHO

and
AMYRIS, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.

25
26
27
28
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:13-cv-03694-WHO

1
2
3
4
5

Having considered the Stipulation Regarding Schedule for Amending Complaint and
Defendants’ Response to Complaint, and good cause showing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1) Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, or otherwise designate his current complaint
as the operative complaint, on or before November 15, 2013;

6

2) Defendants’ deadline for responding to the complaint in this action shall be extended

7

such that Defendants shall answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s

8

operative complaint on or before January 14, 2014;

9
10
11
12

3) If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to that motion
on or before March 17, 2014; and
4) If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Defendants shall file any reply regarding that
motion on or before April 16, 2014.

13
14
15
16

Dated: October 18, 2013
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:13-cv-03694-WHO