Markette v. XOMA Corp et al
Filing
70
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 69 Stipulation 66 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COOLEY LLP
JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (220934) (jsantamaria@cooley.com)
AMANDA A. MAIN (260814) (amain@cooley.com)
BRETT H. DE JARNETTE (292919) (bdejarnette@cooley.com)
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone:
(650) 843-5000
Facsimile:
(650) 849-7400
Attorneys for Defendants
XOMA CORPORATION, JOHN W. VARIAN,
and PAUL D. RUBIN
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH F. MARKETTE, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 3:15-CV-3425-HSG
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RELATE
CASES
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
Judge:
14
15
16
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
XOMA CORPORATION, JOHN W.
VARIAN, and PAUL D. RUBIN,
Defendants.
17
18
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2015, Plaintiff Joseph F. Markette filed a putative class action
19
complaint (the “Markette Class Action”), Case No. 3-15-CV-3425-HSG, against defendants
20
XOMA Corporation, John W. Varian and Paul D. Rubin for violations of Sections 10(b) and
21
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”);
22
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2015, Plaintiff Deborah A. Fieser filed a shareholder
23
derivative action complaint (the “Fieser Derivative Action”), Case No. 4:15-CV-05236-KAW
24
against defendants XOMA Corporation, W. Denman Van Ness, William K. Bowes Jr., Peter
25
Barton Hutt, Joseph M. Limber, Kelvin M. Neu, Patrick J. Scannon, John W. Varian, Timothy P.
26
Walbert, Paul D. Rubin, and Jack L. Wyszomierski, for breach of fiduciary duty, arising out of
27
largely the same underlying facts as the Markette Class Action;
28
COOLEY LLP
A TTORN E YS A T L A W
P A LO A LTO
1.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO RELATE CASES
3:15-CV-3425-HSG
1
WHEREAS, the parties believe under the particular circumstances of this case that the
2
Markette Class Action and the Fieser Derivative Action should be related pursuant to Northern
3
District of California Local Rule 3-12(a);
4
THEREFORE, the parties, through counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
5
1.
6
7
8
The Markette Class Action and the Fieser Derivative Action should be related
pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 3-12(a).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: January 21, 2016
9
10
COOLEY LLP
JOHN C. DWYER (136533)
JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (220934)
AMANDA A. MAIN (260814)
BRETT H. DE JARNETTE (292919)
11
12
/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)
13
Attorneys for Defendants XOMA CORPORATION,
JOHN W. VARIAN, and PAUL D. RUBIN
14
15
Dated: January 21, 2016
16
PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
MARK PUNZALAN (247599)
17
18
/s/ Mark Punzalan
Mark Punzalan (247599)
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSEPHE F. MARKETTE
20
21
22
23
Dated: January 21, 2016
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
ROBERT S. GREEN (136183)
JAMES ROBERT NOBLIN (114442)
and
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
WILLIAM B. FEDERMAN
24
25
26
/s/ James Robert Noblin
James Robert Noblin (114442)
Attorneys for Plaintiff DEBORAH A. FIESER
27
28
COOLEY LLP
A TTORN E YS A T L A W
P A LO A LTO
2.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO RELATE CASES
3:15-CV-3425-HSG
1
2
ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3))
In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
3
document has been obtained from the signatories.
4
Dated: January 25, 2016
COOLEY LLP
5
/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)
6
7
Attorneys for Defendants XOMA
CORPORATION, JOHN W. VARIAN,
and PAUL D. RUBIN
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
Dated: January 25, 2016
12
13
__________________________________
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Court Judge
126567771
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
A TTORN E YS A T L A W
P A LO A LTO
3.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO RELATE CASES
3:15-CV-3425-HSG
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?