Brian B. Sand & Zachary B. Sand Joint Trust v. Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. et al

Filing 65

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 64 to Modify Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Continue Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/4/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2017)

1

4

Robert B. Hawk (Bar No. 118054)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4085 Campbell Avenue, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: + 1 [phone]
Facsimile: + 1 [phone]
[e-mail]

5

--Additional Attorneys Listed On Signature Page--

6

Attorneys for Defendants
BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, L.P.,
BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND II, L.P.,
INVESTMENT 10, L.L.C.
MSI BVF SPV, LLC,
BVF PARTNERS, L.P.,
BVF INC.,
MARK N. LAMPERT, and
MAGNITUDE CAPITAL, LLC

2
3

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Jack G. Fruchter (admitted pro hac vice)
Cassandra L. Porsch (admitted pro hac vice)
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
--Additional Attorneys Listed On Signature Page-Attorneys for Plaintiff

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22
23

BRIAN B. SAND & ZACHARY B. SAND
JOINT TRUST

24
25
26
27

Plaintiff,
v.
BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, L.P., ET
AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-CV-01313-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO
RESPOND TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
The Hon. Richard Seeborg

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01313-RS

1
2

WHEREAS, the Court entered its Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, With Leave to
Amend on March 3, 2017 (Dkt. 59);

3

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 23, 2017 (Dkt. 60);

4

WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities

5

Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P., Biotechnology Value

6

Fund II, L.P., Investment 10, L.L.C., MSI BVF SPV, LLC (sued incorrectly as “MSI BVF SPV

7

INC.”), BVF Partners, L.P., BVF Inc., and Mark N. Lampert, (collectively, the “Original

8

Defendants”), as well as against newly-added defendant Magnitude Capital, LLC (“Magnitude,”

9

and collectively with the Original Defendants, the “Defendants”) (Dkt. 60);

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

WHEREAS, Original Defendants are currently due to answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint by April 6, 2017 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3));
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2017, Magnitude agreed to Plaintiff’s request to waive service
of the summons and the Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, Magnitude is currently due to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint by May 30, 2017 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3));
WHEREAS, Defendants intend to file a single, joint motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6);
WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy and the economy of the parties, Plaintiff
and Defendants wish to modify the default briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to dismiss;

20

WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy and the economy of the parties, Plaintiff

21

and Defendants also seek an order continuing the May 4, 2017, Case Management Conference,

22

(see Dkt. 59), pending the Court’s decision on Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss the

23

Amended Complaint;

24
25

WHEREAS, there is no other scheduled date that would be affected by the proposed
changes;

26

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned

27

attorneys for Plaintiff and the undersigned attorneys for Defendants, that the parties respectfully

28

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01313-RS

1
2
3

request, pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, that the case schedule be changed as follows:
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on behalf of all
Defendants shall be due April 20, 2017;

4

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be due May 18, 2017;

5

3. Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss shall be due June 1, 2017;

6
7
8

and
4. The May 4, 2017, Case Management Conference shall be continued pending the
Court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

9
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
10
11

Dated: ____March 31_______, 2017

By:

12
13
14

/s/ Robert B. Hawk
Robert B. Hawk
4085 Campbell Avenue, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: + 1 [phone]
Facsimile: + 1 [phone]
[e-mail]
Dennis H. Tracey, III
(admitted pro hac vice)
Derek Musa
(admitted pro hac vice)
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Defendants Biotechnology
Value Fund, L.P., Biotechnology Value
Fund II, L.P., Investment 10, L.L.C., MSI
BVF SPV, LLC, BVF Partners, L.P., BVF
Inc., Mark N. Lampert, and Magnitude
Capital, LLC

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01313-RS

1
2

Dated: ___March 31_______, 2017

By:

3

/s/ _Cassandra L. Porsch________
Jack G. Fruchter
(admitted pro hac vice)
Cassandra L. Porsch
(admitted pro hac vice)
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Ian D. Berg
Takeo A. Kellar
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

10
11
12
13
14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiff

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01313-RS

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the stipulation
3
between Plaintiffs and Defendants is granted, and:
4
5

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on behalf of all
Defendants shall be due April 20, 2017;

6
2. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be due May 18,
7
8

2017;
3. Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss shall be due June 1,

9
2017; and
10
11

4. The May 4, 2017, Case Management Conference shall be continued pending
the Court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended

12
Complaint, or to such date that pleases the Court.
13
14
15
16

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _________________, 2017
April 4

17
18
19

____________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01313-RS