Csoka v. Varian et al

Filing 32

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 31 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Joseph M. Limber, Paul D. Rubin, W. Denman Van Ness, Xoma Corporation, William K. Bowes, Jr, Peter Barton Hutt, Patrick J. Scannon, Timothy P. Wilbert, Jack L. Wyszomierski, John W. Varian. 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) ([e-mail])
JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (220934) ([e-mail])
BRETT H. DE JARNETTE (292919) ([e-mail])
JESSIE SIMPSON LAGOY (305257) ([e-mail])
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
JOHN VARIAN, PAUL D. RUBIN, PATRICK J. SCANNON,
WILLIAM K. BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT,
JOSEPH M. LIMBER, W. DENMAN VAN NESS,
TIMOTHY P. WALBERT, AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI
and Nominal Defendant XOMA CORPORATION

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

JEFFREY CSOKA, derivatively on
behalf of XOMA CORPORATION,

16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN VARIAN, PAUL D. RUBIN,
PATRICK J. SCANNON, WILLIAM K.
BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT,
JOSEPH M. LIMBER, W. DENMAN VAN
NESS, TIMOTHY P. WALBERT,
AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI,

22

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,

23

Case No. 3:15-CV-05429-JST

And

24
25

XOMA CORPORATION,
Nominal Defendant.

26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05429-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 a related shareholder derivative

7

action, captioned Fieser v. W. Denman Van Ness, et. al., Case No. 3:15-CV-05236-JST, on

8

November 16, 2015 (“Fieser Derivative Action”);

9

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Jeffrey Csoka (“Cskoka”) filed this related shareholder derivative

10

action in the United States Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Csoka v. John

11

Varian, et. al., Case No. 3:15-CV-05429-JST, on November 25, 2015 (“Csoka Derivative

12

Action”), naming John W. Varian, Paul D. Rubin, Patrick J. Scannon, William K. Bowes Jr.,

13

Peter Barton Hutt, Joseph M. Limber, W. Denman Van Ness, Timothy P. Wilbert, and Jack L.

14

Wyszomierski, as Defendants (collectively, “Individual Defendants), and XOMA as Nominal

15

Defendant (together with Plaintiff Csoka, the “Parties”);

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 18, 2016, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the Csoka

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-05429-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 Csoka 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-05429-JST

1
2
3
4

NOW THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between
the Parties, through their respective counsel:
1. Plaintiff Csoka 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

Dated: December 4, 2017

COOLEY LLP

8
9

/s/ Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (220934)

10

Attorneys for Defendants JOHN VARIAN, PAUL D.
RUBIN, PATRICK J. SCANNON, WILLIAM K.
BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT, JOSEPH M.
LIMBER, W. DENMAN VAN NESS, TIMOTHY P.
WALBERT, AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI and
Nominal Defendant XOMA CORPORATION

11
12
13
14
15

Dated: December 4, 2017

LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. BERNSTEIN
ADAM BERNSTEIN (132982)

16
/s/ Adam Bernstein
Adam Bernstein (132982)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

198 Coffeeberry Dr.
San Jose, CA, 95123
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
TIMOTHY W. BROWN
127A Cove Road
Oyster Bay Cove, New York 11771
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff JEFFREY CSOKA

26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

4.

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05429-JST

1
2
3
4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
December 6, 2017
DATED: _____________________

__________________________________________
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO

5.

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05429-JST