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)
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?