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)
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?