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
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?