Curry v. Yelp Inc. et al

Filing 9

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 8 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue the Initial Case Management Conference, Reset Related Deadlines, and Extend Defendants' Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by Joseph Curry Case Management Statement due by 4/17/2015. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/29/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 2, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014)

1
2
3

YELP INC.
AARON SCHUR (SBN 229566) ([e-mail])
140 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

4
5

Attorneys for Defendants
Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman,
Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
SHAWN A. WILLIAMS (213113) ([e-mail])
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
– and –
DARREN J. ROBBINS (168593) ([e-mail])
DAVID C. WALTON (167268) ([e-mail])
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
19

JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

20

Plaintiff,

21
22
23

Case No. 3:14-cv-03547-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, RESET
RELATED DEADLINES, AND EXTEND
DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
COMPLAINT

v.
YELP INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN,
ROBERT J. KROLIK and GEOFFREY
DONAKER
Defendants.

24
25

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2014, Plaintiff Joseph Curry filed a putative class action

26

complaint (the “Complaint”) in the above-captioned action against defendants Yelp Inc., Jeremy

27

Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker (“Defendants”), for violations of Sections

28

10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
109968998 v4

1.

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE
INITIAL CMC, RESET DEADLINES, AND EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND – CV14-03547

1

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, Plaintiff Mary Adams also filed a similar putative class

2

action complaint (the “Adams Complaint”) in a separate action, Case No. 3:14-cv-03832-EMC,

3

against Defendants, asserting the same or substantially similar violations of Sections 10(b) and

4

20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

5

WHEREAS, the action is subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

6

(the “PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4, which establishes the procedure by which members of the

7

purported class may seek appointment as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”);

8

WHEREAS, the PSLRA’s procedure requires plaintiff to publish a notice advising

9

putative class members of, amongst other things, the filing of the action within 20 days from the

10

date on which the first complaint is filed (“the Notice”), and sets a deadline for motions to serve

11

as Lead Plaintiff to be filed not later than 60 days after the publication of the Notice and that the

12

Court will consider such motions not later than 90 days after the publication of the notice,

13

15 U.S.C. §§78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), (B)(i);

14
15

WHEREAS, the parties anticipate that one or more motions for Lead Plaintiff will be filed
and that the Court will relate and consolidate the above-mentioned cases;

16

WHEREAS, in the interests of judicial economy and conserving the resources of the

17

parties and the Court, all parties agree that no answer, motion, or other response to the Complaint

18

currently on file should be due until after the Court has appointed one or more Lead Plaintiffs and

19

approved selection of lead counsel to represent the purported class (“Lead Counsel”) and Lead

20

Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have had the opportunity to prepare a consolidated complaint and/or

21

to consider whether to proceed on the Complaint currently on file; and

22

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

23

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

24

and related deadlines (including ADR deadlines) until a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed, the

25

Lead Plaintiff’s selection of Lead Counsel has been approved, the Lead Plaintiff has filed a

26

consolidated complaint, Defendants have had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss, and

27

the Court has ruled on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.

28
109968998 v4

2.

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE
INITIAL CMC, RESET DEADLINES, AND EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND – CV14-03547

1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:

2

1.

Defendants shall not be required to move or otherwise respond to the Complaint

3

until a date set after the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)

4

and after the filing by such Lead Plaintiff of a consolidated complaint.

5

Rule 6-1(a), this paragraph shall be effective upon the filing of this Stipulation with the Court.

6

2.

Pursuant to Local

Following the appointment of Lead Plaintiff, Defendants and counsel for Lead

7

Plaintiff will meet and confer in good faith to establish a schedule for the filing of a consolidated

8

complaint and for Defendants’ response thereto.

9

3.

The case management conference presently scheduled in the above-captioned

10

action for November 12, 2014, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of

11

Civil Procedure and Local Rules (including ADR deadlines), shall be vacated, and reset to a date

12

after the Court rules on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

13

The case management conference currently scheduled for November 12, 2014, is hereby

14

CONTINUED to April 29, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

15

Avenue, San Francisco, California. All deadlines which are normally calculated from the date of

16

the initial case management conference under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Civil Local

17

Rules (including ADR deadlines) are VACATED.

18

April 17, 2015.

19

reinstatement of those vacated dates. The parties may move to further continue, or advance, the

20

case management conference, as appropriate, based on the pendency of any motions to

21

consolidate, designate a lead plaintiff, or dismiss a consolidated complaint

22
23
24

A joint case management statement is due

In that statement, the parties shall include in their proposed schedule the

4.

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

5.

No party is waiving any rights, claims, or defenses of any kind except as expressly

relief.

25

stated herein, and the parties reserve the right to seek further extensions of time as circumstances

26

may warrant.

27

6.

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

28

7.

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

109968998 v4

3.

STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE
INITIAL CMC, RESET DEADLINES, AND EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND – CV14-03547

1

proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as the Court has yet to

2

schedule these dates.

3
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6

DATED: August 29, 2014

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

7
By:

8

s/ Shawn A. Williams
Shawn A. Williams

9
10

DATED: August 29, 2014

YELP INC.

11
By:

s/ Aaron Schur
Aaron Schur

12
13

*****

14

ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3))

15

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this

16

document has been obtained from Aaron Schur.

17

DATED: August 29, 2014

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

18
By:

19
20

s/ Shawn A. Williams
Shawn A. Williams

Attorneys for Plaintiff

21

S

24

RT

E

H

28

n S.
J u d ge J o

109968998 v4

4.

Ti ga r

FO

NO

27

LI

26

R NIA

ERED
O ORD D
IT IS SJon S. IFIE
Honorable MODTigar
AS
United States District Judge

DATED: September 2, 2014

A

25

RT
U
O

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. A
T
*****

UNIT
ED

22

C
RN
STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE
F
INITIAL CMC, RESET DEADLINES, AND EXTEND
D IS T IC T O
R
TIME TO RESPOND – CV14-03547