Hayes v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp. et al

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 75 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD HAYES, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR
CORP., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR ORDER ENLARGING
TIME
Re: ECF No. 75

Defendants.
Before the Court is a motion for an order enlarging time filed by Defendant MagnaChip

13

Semiconductor Corporation (“MagnaChip”). ECF No. 75. Defendants Avenue Capital

14

Management II, L.P., Randal Klein, and Michael Elkins have joined the motion. ECF No. 77.

15

Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas opposes the motion. ECF No. 79. For the reasons set forth below,

16

the Court will grant the motion.

17

MagnaChip seeks an order adjourning the May 15, 2015, deadline to respond to the

18

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) until after this Court has resolved the various uncertainties

19

raised by the filing of a related case, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v.

20

MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-01797, including questions regarding

21

which complaint is the operative complaint and the status of lead counsel. ECF No. 75.

22

MagnaChip argues that if the May 15, 2015, deadline is not adjourned, Defendants will be forced

23

to brief duplicative motions to dismiss, at least one of which might become moot in the event of

24

consolidation. Id. at 3-4. It contends that this would serve neither judicial nor party economy, and

25

would create both an undue burden for Defendants and a risk of inconsistent rulings. Id. at 4. In

26

addition, MagnaChip suggests that any disputes regarding Lead Plaintiff status will impair

27

effective communication between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Id.

28

“Lead Counsel respects that Defendants should not be compelled to respond to serial

1

complaints that raise identical issues,” but Plaintiff nevertheless argues that the Oklahoma Police

2

case is no reason to further postpone Defendants’ deadline to respond to the pleadings in this

3

action. ECF No. 79 at 7. He argues that it would be more efficient and equitable to require

4

Defendants to respond to the claims asserted in the SAC now, and then address the new Oklahoma

5

Police claims separately. Id.
The Court will grant Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s motion to coordinate and partially

6
7

consolidate this action and the related Oklahoma Police action is set for hearing on June 11, 2015.

8

The burden that will fall on Defendants if they are required to respond to the SAC now, while the

9

question of consolidation is unsettled, exceeds any prejudice to Plaintiff caused by adjourning the
deadline for a few weeks pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to coordinate and partially

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

consolidate this action with the related Oklahoma Police action.
Accordingly, Defendants’ May 15, 2015, deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the

12
13

Second Amended Complaint is adjourned.
If this Court subsequently consolidates this action and the Oklahoma Police action, within

14
15

fourteen days after the entry of an order declining to permit a new notice period or, if a new notice

16

period is permitted, an order appointing Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiffs shall either (a) serve and file an

17

amended or consolidated class action complaint that shall function as the operative complaint in

18

this action and in any related consolidated action; or (b) notify counsel for Defendants that the

19

SAC shall remain the operative complaint in this action. Defendants shall have thirty days after

20

such service or notification to answer or otherwise respond to the designated operative complaint.

21

If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss that operative complaint, Plaintiffs shall have sixty days

22

to respond to the motion(s), and defendants shall have thirty days to file their reply brief(s).
If this Court subsequently denies consolidation of this action and the Oklahoma Police

23
24

action, within twenty-one days of the entry of such an order, Defendants shall answer or otherwise

25

respond to the SAC. If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss that operative complaint, Plaintiffs

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

shall have sixty days to respond to the motion(s), and Defendants shall have thirty days to file

2

their reply brief(s).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2015

5
6
7

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3