Bodri v. GoPro, Inc. et al
Filing
88
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 87 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 85 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11 filed by Majesty Palms, LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 19, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Patrice L. Bishop (182256)
pbishop@ssbla.com
STULL, STULL & BRODY
9430 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: 310-209-2468
Fax: 310-209-2087
Counsel for Plaintiff Majesty Palms, LLLP
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
JOSEPH BODRI, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v.
Plaintiff,
GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN,
and JACK LAZAR,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONCERNING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS
JUDGE:
CRTRM:
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
9, 19th Floor
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12, 7-11 and 7-12, the Parties in each of the above-entitled
2
actions, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to the following:
4
Investment”) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) as lead
6
between July 21, 2015, and January 13, 2016 (Dkt. No. 76);
3
5
7
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2016, the Court appointed Camia Investment LLC (“Camia
plaintiff in this action to represent a putative class of investors who purchased GoPro securities
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2016, the Court appointed Majesty Palms, LLLP (“Majesty
8
Palms”) pursuant to the PSLRA as lead plaintiff in this action to represent a putative class of
10
WHEREAS, Camia Investment’s and Majesty Palms’ amended pleadings were due to be
9
investors who purchased GoPro securities between November 26, 2014, and July 20, 2015 (id.);
11
filed on June 21, 2016, Defendants’ motions to dismiss were due on August 22, 2016, responses in
13
motions to dismiss were due on November 21, 2016, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was
12
14
15
opposition to the motions to dismiss were due on October 21, 2016, replies in support of the
scheduled for December 22, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.;
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2016, Majesty Palms filed an administrative motion seeking an
16
extension of 30 days to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 80);
18
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. No. 81);
20
Palms’ administrative motion and requested a single briefing schedule and hearing date for its
22
No. 84);
17
19
21
23
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2016, Camia Investment filed a Consolidated Complaint for
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Majesty
anticipated motions to dismiss both the Camia Investment and Majesty Palms complaints (Dkt.
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the Court granted Majesty Palms’ administrative motion
24
for a 30-day extension of the due date to file its amended complaint, resulting in the complaint
26
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer
25
27
28
being due July 28, 2016 (Dkt. No. 85);
regarding a single briefing schedule and hearing date for Defendants’ anticipated motions to
dismiss (id.);
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
-1-
1
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed on the following schedule in
2
light of the Court’s order and in consideration of fairness to all parties;
4
that:
6
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws without prejudice as to further
8
Investment’s complaint, except that Defendants reserve their right to object to such further
3
5
7
9
10
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the Parties,
1.
Camia Investment shall have until July 28, 2016, to amend its Consolidated
amendment in the event that the Court grants Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss Camia
amendment on the ground that it is futile;
2.
Defendants shall have until September 26, 2016, to respond to Camia Investment’s
3.
If Defendants’ respond by moving to dismiss Camia Investment’s and Majesty
11
and Majesty Palms’ complaints; and
13
Palms’ complaints:
12
14
o
Plaintiffs shall have until November 16, 2016, to file responses in
o
Defendants shall have until December 22, 2016, to file replies in support of
o
The Court shall hold hearings on the motions to dismiss at its earliest
15
opposition to the motions to dismiss;
17
the motions to dismiss; and
19
convenience after briefing is complete.
16
18
20
21
22
23
Dated: July 18, 2016
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
By: /s/ Shawn A. Williams_______
Shawn A. Williams
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street
Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 288-4545
Fax: (415) 288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
1
Michael I. Fistel , Jr.
Johnson & Weaver, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Tel: (770) 200-3104
Fax: (770) 200-3101
Email: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com
2
3
4
5
Attorneys for Camia Investment LLC
6
7
8
9
Dated: July 18, 2016
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff Majesty Palms, LLLP
Dated: July 18, 2016
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
FENWICK & WEST LLP
By: /s/Catherine D. Kevane _______
Catherine D. Kevane
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Tel: (415) 875-2300
Fax: (415) 281-1350
Email: ckevane@fenwick.com
Attorneys for Defendants
GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman,
Jack Lazar, and Anthony Bates
24
26
By: /s/ Patrice l. Bishop_________
Patrice L. Bishop
9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (310) 209-2468
Fax: (310) 209-2087
Email: pbishop@ssbla.com
Thomas J. McKenna
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212) 983-0383
Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
13
17
STULL, STULL & BRODY
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I, Patrice L. Bishop, attest that all other signatories listed,
and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the
filing.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
/s/_Patrice L. Bishop
1
HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
NO
10
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
RT
11
ER
H
12
n
J u d ge J o
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00232-JST
R NIA
8
S . Ti ga r
FO
7
July 19, 2016
Dated: _____________________
RT
U
O
6
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
___________________________________________
LI
5
A
4
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
3
UNIT
ED
2
[Proposed] ORDER
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?