International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478 v. Hsu et al
Filing
34
STIPULATION AND RESCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 01/29/2015. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2015)
1
2
3
4
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
BRETT M. MIDDLETON (Bar No. 199427)
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Tel: (858) 793-0070
Fax: (858) 293-0323
brettm@blbglaw.com
5
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 478
7
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
13
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 478,
Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.
16
17
18
19
20
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
RESCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiff,
14
15
Case No.: 14-cv-04980-SC
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
vs.
LARRY HSU, G. FREDERICK
WILKINSON, LESLIE Z. BENET, ROBERT
L. BURR, ALLEN CHAO, NIGEL T.
FLEMING, MICHAEL MARKBREITER,
MICHAEL J. NESTOR, MARY K.
PENDERGAST, BRYAN M. REASONS,
and PETER R. TERRERI,
Defendants.
21
22
23
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers
24
Local 478 (“IUOE” or “Plaintiff”) by and through its counsel, initiated this shareholder
25
derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) and against
26
defendants Larry Hsu, G. Frederick Wilkinson, Leslie Z. Benet, Robert L. Burr, Allen Chao,
27
Nigel T. Fleming, Michael Markbreiter, Michael J. Nestor, Mary K. Pendergast, Bryan M.
28
Reasons, and Peter R. Terreri, (collectively, “Defendants”);
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] RESCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NUMBER: 14-cv-04980-SC
1
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, Plaintiff and plaintiff in Wickey v. Larry Hsu, et al.,
2
No. 14-cv-04266-JD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) jointly filed an unopposed motion to consolidate
3
the Wickey and IUOE actions in front of the Honorable Judge Donato;
4
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, Judge Donato denied the Motion to Consolidate;
5
WHEREAS, based on Judge Donato’s denial of the Motion to Consolidate, Defendants’
6
motion to dismiss is due within 30 days of such ruling (or February 20, 2015), pursuant to the
7
Stipulation and Rescheduling Order entered by this Court on January 5, 2015 (ECF No. 30);
8
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Administrative Motion To
9
Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related And Notice Of Pendency Of Other Action Or
10
Proceeding (the “Administrative Motion”) before Judge Donato;
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiff IUOE filed a Notice Of Pendency Of Other
11
12
Action Or Proceeding Pursuant To Civil Local Rule 3-13 in the above captioned action;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs intend to file a renewed motion to consolidate the Wickey and
13
14
IUOE actions consistent with the outcome of the Administrative Motion, in the coming days;
WHEREAS, if consolidated, Plaintiffs intend to file an amended consolidated complaint;
15
16
and
17
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be a waste of judicial resources for
18
Defendants to prepare and file a motion to dismiss prior to Judge Donato’s ruling on the renewed
19
motion to consolidate and, if granted, the amended consolidated complaint being filed;
20
21
22
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record,
stipulate as follows:
1.
vacated.
23
24
The current February 20, 2015 deadline for Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
2.
If Judge Donato grants Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for consolidation (or the Court
25
consolidates the Wickey and IUOE actions sua sponte), Defendants shall file and
26
serve their motion to dismiss within 45 days of plaintiffs filing an amended
27
consolidated complaint.
28
3.
If the Court denies Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for consolidation, Defendants shall
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] RESCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NUMBER: 14-cv-04980-SC
D
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
R NIA
S
UNIT
ED
RT
U
O
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
NO
el Conti
A
H
LI
RT
ER
FO
amu
Judge S
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?