Gibrall et al v. Intrexon Corporation et al

Filing 19

STIPULATION AND ORDER [#18] to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/29/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838
Email: [e-mail]
JEROME F. BIRN, JR., State Bar No. 128561
Email: [e-mail]
JONI OSTLER, State Bar No. 230009
Email: [e-mail]
NICHOLAS R. MILLER, State Bar No. 274243
Email: [e-mail]
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,
Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

PATRICK M. and DEBORAH P. GIBRALL,
)
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly )
)
Situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
INTREXON CORPORATION, RANDAL J.
)
KIRK, and RICK L. STERLING,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, Plaintiffs Patrick M. and Deborah P. Gibrall, individually

2

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of the

3

Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”) against Intrexon Corporation (“Intrexon”) and certain

4

of its current executives, Randal J. Kirk and Rick L. Sterling (collectively, “Defendants”);

5

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, a substantively similar complaint with the caption Ryan

6

Hoffman v. Intrexon Corp. et al. (Case No. 3:16-cv-02398-RS) (the “Hoffman Action”) was filed

7

with the Court;

8
9
10

WHEREAS, Defendants signed and returned waivers of service and Defendants’ initial
response to the Complaint is currently due on July 11, 2016;
WHEREAS, this action is governed by the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation

11

Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 et seq., and the parties anticipate that the

12

Court will consolidate the Gibrall and Hoffman actions and will appoint a lead plaintiff, and that

13

the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint superseding previously filed

14

complaints, including the Complaint; and

15

WHEREAS, the parties agree that efficiency for the courts and the parties in proceeding

16

under the PSLRA dictates that responding to any complaint should be deferred in light of the

17

foregoing.

18
19
20
21
22

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the
respective parties hereto, that:
1.

Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.
2.

After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

23

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

24

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

25

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

26

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

27

plaintiff.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

-1-

1
2
3

3.

This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

4.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’

relief.

4

rights or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would

5

otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7
8

DATED: June 29, 2016

9
10

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
/s/

11

Joni Ostler
JONI OSTLER

650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,
Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

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

DATED: June 29, 2016

POMERANTZ LLP
/s/

Jennifer Pafiti
JENNIFER PAFITI

468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman
J. Alexander Hood II
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

POMERANTZ LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

-3-

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, it is hereby ordered that:

3

1.

4

Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.

5

2.

After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

6

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

7

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

8

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

9

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

10

plaintiff.

11

3.

This Order is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

4.

Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’ rights

12
13

relief.

14

or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would otherwise

15

have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

DATED:

6/29/16

20

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

-4-