Luna et al v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. et al

Filing 134

NOTICE RE ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/3/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DANIEL LUNA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated
No. C 15-05447 WHA
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

(Consolidated)
v.
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, et al.,

NOTICE RE ORAL
ARGUMENT

Defendants.
/

16
17

For tomorrow’s oral argument, the parties shall please be prepared to address what the

18

operative complaint or the documents properly subject to judicial notice in our record say in

19

response to the following questions:

20

•

What was specifically wrong with the alleged improper
pull-in transactions?

21

•

How many allegedly improper pull-in transactions
occurred?

23

•

What proportion of the revenue recognized via pull-in
transactions was improperly recognized?

24

•

What allegations specifically indicate that the premature
revenue recognition was not an innocent mistake?

26

•

Was the prematurely recognized revenue just enough to
meet quarterly targets?

27

•

What is the source of the allegation that Sutardja and Dai
were fired because of the conclusions of the investigation
into the pull-in transactions?

22

25

28

1

•

2

How many of the pull-in transactions became unpaid
receivables, and how many were paid in full at the initially
negotiated rate?

3
4

Dated: May 3, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2