Manger v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Stipulation Extending Defendants' Response Deadline Pending Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and Vacating Initial Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/10/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

Download PDF
1 Jordan Eth (Bar No. 121617) JEth@mofo.com 2 Mark R.S. Foster (Bar No. 223682) MFoster@mofo.com 3 David J. Wiener (Bar No. 291659) DWiener@mofo.com 4 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 (415) 268-7000 5 Telephone: Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN BARBOUR, 8 WILLIAM B. CHIASSON, THOMAS J. KALINSKE, E. STANTON MCKEE, RANDY O. RISSMAN, 9 CADEN WANG, and STEPHEN M. YOUNGWOOD 10 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 PETE J. MANGER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 18 19 LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN BARBOUR, WILLIAM B. CHIASSON, THOMAS J. KALINSKE, E. STANTON MCKEE, RANDY O. RISSMAN, CADEN WANG, and STEPHEN M. YOUNGWOOD, 20 Defendants. 21 22 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number 3:16-cv-01161 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE PENDING APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL AND VACATING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE & VACATING CMC CASE NUMBER 3:16-CV-01161 sf-3645242 1 All parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation deferring 2 Defendants’ deadlines to respond to the complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), and vacating 3 the initial case management conference. 4 5 RECITALS A. On March 9, 2016, the above-captioned class action complaint was filed in this Court. The 6 complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. and certain 7 of its former officers and directors. (Dkt. No. 1.) 8 B. Upon commencement of the action, an initial case management conference was set for 9 June 7, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. (Dkt. No. 4.) 10 C. This action is governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 11 § 78u-4 et seq. (the “Reform Act”). 12 D. No additional meaningful litigation activity, beyond the relief Plaintiff Manger sought prior 13 to the expiration of the Tender Offer, is expected until after the Court appoints lead plaintiff and 14 lead counsel, at which point an amended complaint is likely to be filed by the appointed lead 15 plaintiff and lead counsel. After an operative amended complaint is filed, defendants anticipate 16 filing motions to dismiss that complaint. 17 E. Counsel for the undersigned parties agree that deferring the response deadlines for all 18 defendants until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Reform 19 Act is prudent and will conserve party and judicial resources. The parties further agree that an 20 initial case management conference, attendant deadlines, and related ADR procedures are premature 21 and should be deferred until the initial case management conference is reset. 22 23 STIPULATION NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby stipulate, subject to Court approval, as 24 follows: 25 1. The named defendants agree to accept service, through counsel, to the extent they have not 26 yet been served. 27 28 1 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE & VACATING CMC CASE NUMBER 3:16-CV-01161 sf-3645242 1 2. The named defendants shall have no obligation to respond to the complaint until after the 2 Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. 3 3. Counsel for the named defendants will meet and confer with the Court-appointed lead 4 counsel within fourteen days after the Court makes its appointment to discuss a schedule for filing 5 of any amended complaint and defendants’ responses, including their currently anticipated motion 6 to dismiss. 7 4. The Case Management Conference that is presently scheduled for June 7, 2016 is hereby 8 vacated and shall be reset in connection with the setting of the briefing schedule on defendants’ 9 anticipated motion to dismiss. The related deadlines, including ADR requirements, shall be 10 deferred until after an initial case management conference is reset. 11 12 Dated: May 10, 2016 13 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP JORDAN ETH MARK R.S. FOSTER DAVID J. WIENER 14 15 16 17 By: /s/ Mark R.S. Foster MARK R.S. FOSTER 18 Attorneys for Defendants LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN BARBOUR, WILLIAM B. CHIASSON, THOMAS J. KALINSKE, E. STANTON MCKEE, RANDY O. RISSMAN, CADEN WANG, and STEPHEN M. YOUNGWOOD 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE & VACATING CMC CASE NUMBER 3:16-CV-01161 sf-3645242 1 Dated: May 10, 2016 FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 By: /s/ James M. Wilson, Jr. ________ _ FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP James M. Wilson, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Tel.: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff PETE J. MANGER 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OF COUNSEL: FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP Juan E. Monteverde 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Tel.: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com Barbara A. Rohr (Bar No. 273353) 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (424) 256-2884 Fax: (424) 256-2885 Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff PETE J. MANGER 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE & VACATING CMC CASE NUMBER 3:16-CV-01161 sf-3645242 1 2 ORDER Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. 3 4 HON. WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 Dated: May 10, 2016 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DEADLINE & VACATING CMC CASE NUMBER 3:16-CV-01161 sf-3645242

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?