Newett v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 133

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 132 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER filed by John Barbour, Raymond L. Arthur, Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. Opposition due 8/3/17. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/7/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 JORDAN ETH (CA SBN 121617) JEth@mofo.com MARK R.S. FOSTER (CA SBN 223682) MFoster@mofo.com RYAN M. KEATS (CA SBN 296463) RKeats@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendants LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN BARBOUR, and RAYMOND L. ARTHUR 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 IN RE LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC CLASS ACTION 15 16 This Document Relates To: 17 ALL ACTIONS 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC sf-3802168 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the parties – lead plaintiff KBC Asset Management 2 NV (“Lead Plaintiff”) and defendants LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., John Barbour, and 3 Raymond L. Arthur (“Defendants”) – by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit 4 the following stipulation and proposed order: 5 WHEREAS, on July 5, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to File Motion For 6 Reconsideration of February 24, 2017 Order In Light Of Recent Change In Controlling Law 7 (“Motion”); 8 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff intends to oppose the Motion; 9 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff has requested that it have until August 3, 2017 to respond to 10 the Motion in light of their counsel’s deadlines in other matters and additional previously 11 scheduled conflicts; 12 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree and stipulate, subject to Court approval, as 13 follows: 14 1. Lead Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the Motion on or before August 3, 2017. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC sf-3802168 1 1 2 DATED: July 6, 2017 3 4 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHAWN A. WILLIAMS WILLOW E. RADCLIFFE MATTHEW S. MELAMED 5 /s/ Matthew S. Melamed MATTHEW S. MELAMED 6 7 Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) 8 9 10 MOTLEY RICE LLC JAMES M. HUGHES WILLIAM S. NORTON CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: 843/216-9000 843/216-9450 (fax) 11 12 13 14 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 15 16 DATED: July 6, 2017 17 18 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP JORDAN ETH MARK R.S. FOSTER RYAN M. KEATS 19 /s/ Mark R.S. Foster MARK R.S. FOSTER 20 21 23 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: 415/268-7000 415/268-7522 (fax) 24 Counsel for Defendants 22 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC sf-3802168 2 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 7/7/17 S DATED: RT U O RDER UNIT ED S DISTRICT TE C TA IT IS SO ORDERED NO RT Judge Edward M. Chen A H ER RT U O S OO IT IS S R NIA N F D IS T IC T O R C 8 dwa Judge E 11 A H ER LI RT 10 hen rd M. C NO 9 FO 7 FO 6 R NIA HON. EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ED UNIT ED 5 S DISTRICT TE C TA LI 3 N F D IS T IC T O R C 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC sf-3802168 3 1 2 ATTESTATION I, Mark R.S. Foster, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER. In compliance with Civil 4 L.R. 5-1, I hereby attest that Matthew S. Melamed concurred in this filing. 5 /s/ Mark R.S. Foster MARK R.S. FOSTER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-EMC sf-3802168 4

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?