Kishtagari v. Geron Corporation et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 13 STIPULATION to Continue the Initial Case Management Conference, Reset Related Deadlines and Extend Defendant's Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint filed by Rohan Kishtagari. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/14/2014. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2014)

LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180)
1 MICHAEL GOLDBERG (#188669)
2 ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796)
ELAINE CHANG (#293937)
3 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
4 Los Angeles, California 90067
5 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
6 E-mail:
[e-mail]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari
8 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

ROHAN KISHTAGARI, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case No. 3:14-cv-01224-CRB

v.
GERON CORPORATION, JOHN A.
SCARLETT, and OLIVIA K. BLOOM,
Defendants.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,
RESET RELATED DEADLINES AND
EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND
TO THE COMPLAINT
[CIVIL L.R. 16-2, 7-12]
Current CMC Date: July 11, 2014
Time: 8:30 AM
Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 16-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari (“Kishtagari” or

2 “Plaintiff”) and defendants Geron Corporation (“Geron”), John A. Scarlett, and Olivia K. Bloom
3 (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists to request an order
4 from the Court extending Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint and rescheduling the
5

Initial Case Management Conference currently set for July 11, 2014, pursuant to this Court’s

6
7

March 14, 2014 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt.

8 #6) (the “March 14, 2014 Order”), and to adjust accordingly the related deadlines set forth
9 therein.
10
11

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, Plaintiff Kishtagari filed a putative class action

12
13

complaint, captioned Kishtagari v. Geron Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-cv-01224-CRB (the

14 “Kishtagari Action”), against Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
15 Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
16
17

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2014, a similar putative class action complaint was filed in
this Court asserting the same or substantially similar claims against Defendants, captioned

18
19
20

Beckmann v. Geron Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-cv-01424-LHK (the “Beckmann Action”);
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2014, the parties filed an administrative motion to relate the

21 Kishtagari Action and the Beckmann Action pursuant to Northern District of California Civil
22 Local Rule 3-12(a) because these actions involve substantially the same parties and events and
23

are class actions brought against the same Defendants under the federal securities laws;

24
25

WHEREAS, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”),

26 when a putative class action alleging securities fraud is filed, a process must be followed
27 whereby the plaintiff gives notice to the putative class, there is a sixty (60) day deadline for
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB
1

1

motion(s) for appointment of lead plaintiff to be filed, and the Court appoints lead plaintiff(s)

2 and approves the selection of lead counsel. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a);
3

WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, Plaintiff provided notice to the putative class (Dkt. #8),

4 and the sixty day deadline to file motions for consolidation of the related actions, appointment of
5

lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel has not yet passed;

6
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiff anticipates that the actions will be consolidated and that the lead

8 plaintiff will accordingly need to file a consolidated amended complaint;
9

WHEREAS, the March 14, 2014 Order directed the parties to meet and confer, and then

10 complete initial disclosures on July 4, 2014;
11

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

12
13

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

14 and the completion of initial disclosures until a lead plaintiff has been appointed, the lead
15 plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel has been approved, the lead plaintiff has filed a consolidated
16 amended complaint, Defendants have had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss, and the
17

Court has ruled on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss; and

18
19

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties

20 hereto, through their undersigned counsel, as follows:
21

1.

Defendants need not answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this

22 action or any related, subsequently filed actions transferred to this Court until a date to be set
23

following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing

24
25
26

by such lead plaintiff of a consolidated amended complaint.
2.

Within twenty (20) days following the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead

27 counsel, the parties will meet and confer and submit a schedule for the filing of a consolidated
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB
2

1

amended complaint and the time to for Defendants’ responses thereto.
3.

2

The Initial Case Management Conference shall be held 30 days after an order

3 directing Defendants to file an answer (if any), or as soon as possible thereafter consistent with
4 the Court’s schedule.
5

4.

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

5.

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

6
7
8

relief.

9 rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would
10 otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.
11

6.

The Parties have not sought any other extensions of time in this action.

7.

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

12
13

14 proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as the Court has yet to
15 schedule these dates.
16
17

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court issue an order granting the
parties’ request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines as set

18
19

forth in the following [Proposed] Order.

20 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
21

DATED: April 8, 2014

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By: s/ Robert V. Prongay
Lionel Z. Glancy
Michael Goldberg
Robert V. Prongay
Elaine Chang
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB
3

LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1
2
3
4

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rohan Kishtagari

5
6

DATED: April 8, 2014

COOLEY LLP

7
By: s/ Ryan E. Blair
Ryan E. Blair
[e-mail]
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10
11
12

COOLEY LLP
John C. Dwyer
[e-mail]
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendants
Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett and Olivia K.
Bloom

18
19
20
*

*

*

21
ORDER

22

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

R NIA

NO

28

______________________________________
RED
Hon. Charles R. Breyer RDE
OO
IT IS S
United States District Court Judge
reyer

les R. B

RT

har
Judge C

H

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01224-CRB
ER
4

N

FO

27

DATED: April 14, 2014

LI

26

UNIT
ED

25

RT
U
O

S

24

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

23

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C