Fieser v. Van Ness et al
Filing
48
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 47 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Joseph M. Limber, John Varian, Paul D. Rubin, W. Denman Van Ness, Xoma Corporation, Kelvin M. Neu, Peter Barton Hutt, Patrick J. Scannon, Jack L. Wyszomierski, William K. Bowes, Jr., Timothy P. Walbert. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 6, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COOLEY LLP
JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (220934) (jvs@cooley.com)
BRETT H. DE JARNETTE (292919) (bdejarnette@cooley.com)
JESSIE SIMPSON LAGOY (305257) (jsimpsonlagoy@cooley.com)
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone:
(650) 843-5000
Facsimile:
(650) 849-7400
Attorneys for Defendants
W. DENMAN VAN NESS, WILLIAM K. BOWES, JR.,
PETER BARTON HUTT, JOSEPH M. LIMBER,
KELVIN M. NEU, PATRICK J. SCANNON,
JOHN VARIAN, TIMOTHY P. WALBERT,
PAUL D. RUBIN AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI
and Nominal Defendant XOMA CORPORATION
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DEBORAH A. FIESER, derivatively on
behalf of XOMA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
W. DENMAN VAN NESS, WILLIAM K.
BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT,
JOSEPH M. LIMBER, KELVIN M. NEU,
PATRICK J. SCANNON, JOHN
VARIAN, TIMOTHY P. WALBERT,
PAUL D. RUBIN AND JACK L.
WYSZOMIERSKI and Nominal Defendant
XOMA CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:15-CV-05236-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
Judge:
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05236-JST
1
WHEREAS, Joseph Markette (“Markette”) filed a securities class action lawsuit against
2
XOMA Corporation (“XOMA”), John W. Varian, and Paul D. Rubin relating to XOMA’s
3
EYEGUARD-B study in the United States Court for the Northern District of California,
4
captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et. al., 3:15-CV-3425-HSG, on July 24, 2015 (the
5
“Securities Action”);
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Deborah A. Fieser (“Fieser”) filed this related shareholder
7
derivative action, captioned Fieser v. W. Denman Van Ness, et. al., Case No. 3:15-CV-05236-
8
JST, on November 16, 2015 (“Fieser Derivative Action”), naming W. Denman Van Ness,
9
William K. Bowes, Jr., Peter Barton Hutt, Joseph M. Limber, Kelvin M. Neu, Patrick J. Scannon,
10
John Varian, Timothy P. Walbert, Paul D. Rubin, and Jack L. Wyszomierski, as Defendants
11
(collectively, “Individual Defendants), and XOMA as Nominal Defendant (together with
12
Plaintiff Fieser, the “Parties”);
13
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Csoka filed a related shareholder derivative action in the United
14
States Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Csoka v. John Varian, et. al., Case
15
No. 3:15-CV-05429-JST, on November 25, 2015 (“Csoka Derivative Action”);
16
17
WHEREAS, as of April 25, 2016, both the Fieser Derivative Action and the Csoka
Derivative Action are before Hon. Jon S. Tigar;
18
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2016, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the Fieser
19
Derivative Action, which stated: “the Parties agree that the ruling on any anticipated motions to
20
dismiss in the Securities Action may help inform the manner in which the Derivative Action
21
proceeds;”
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2016, the Court stayed the Fieser Derivative Action pending
future developments in the Securities Action;
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2016, the Court stayed the Csoka Derivative Action pending
future developments in the Securities Action;
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2016, this Court ordered the Fieser and Csoka Derivative
Actions related;
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2016, Defendants filed a motion dismiss the Securities
2.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05236-JST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Action;
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Markette filed an opposition to Defendants’
motion to dismiss;
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2016, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to
dismiss;
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2016, the Court in the Securities Action took the pending
motion to dismiss filings under submission;
8
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2017, the Court in the Securities Action ordered the parties in
9
that action to submit simultaneous supplemental briefing in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent
10
opinion in City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Retirement Sys. v. Align Tech., Inc., No.
11
14-16814, 2017 WL 1753276 (9th Cir. May 5, 2017);
12
13
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2017, both parties in the Securities Action filed supplemental
briefing in support of their respective motion to dismiss filings;
14
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2017, the Court in the Securities Action granted
15
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and
16
entered an order requiring Plaintiff to file and serve an amended class action complaint by
17
October 26, 2017 (Dkt. No. 113 in the Securities Action);
18
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2017, the Court in the Securities Action granted the parties’
19
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),
20
in which Plaintiff Markette voluntarily dismissed the Securities Action with prejudice as to his
21
individual claims, and without prejudice as to the unnamed class members (Dkt. No. 115 in the
22
Securities Action);
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred in good faith, and Plaintiff Fieser has
agreed to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned action without prejudice;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that each party shall bear its own fees and costs related to
this action.
WHEREAS, given this stipulation of dismissal, the Parties agree that the order regarding
ADR issued on November 27, 2017 is moot.
3.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05236-JST
1
2
3
4
NOW THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between
the Parties, through their respective counsel:
1. Plaintiff Fieser voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
5
2. The Parties shall each bear their own fees and costs related to this action.
6
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
7
8
Dated: December 4, 2017
COOLEY LLP
9
/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)
10
11
Attorneys for Defendants W. DENMAN VAN NESS,
WILLIAM K. BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT,
JOSEPH M. LIMBER, KELVIN M. NEU, PATRICK J.
SCANNON, JOHN VARIAN, TIMOTHY P.
WALBERT, PAUL D. RUBIN AND JACK L.
WYSZOMIERSKI and Nominal Defendant XOMA
CORPORATION
12
13
14
15
Dated: December 4, 2017
16
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
and
17
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
WILLIAM B. FEDERMAN
18
19
/s/ Robert S. Green
Robert S. Green (136183)
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff DEBORAH A. FIESER
21
22
23
24
25
26
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: _____________________
December 6, 2017
__________________________________________
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
4.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05236-JST
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?