Silverman v. Schulman et al

Filing 26

STIPULATION AND ORDER 25 Regarding Briefing Schedule for Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/14/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 JAMES N. KRAMER (SBN 154709) jkramer@orrick.com ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES (SBN 268068) atalarides@orrick.com SUZETTE J. PRINGLE (SBN 273116) springle@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 7 8 9 10 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant PayPal Holdings, Inc. and Individual Defendants Daniel H. Schulman, John D. Rainey, Patrick L.A. Dupuis, Wences Casares, Jonathan Christodoro, John J. Donahoe, David W. Dorman, Gail J. McGovern, David M. Moffett, Pierre M. Omidyar and Frank D. Yeary 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 IN RE PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION (Consolidated with No. 3:17-cv-02206-RS; 3:17cv-02428-RS; and 5:17-cv-02446-RS) 17 18 19 Lead Case No. 5:17-cv-00162-RS This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS - (LEAD CASE NO. 5:17-CV-000162-RS) 1 WHEREAS, between on January 12, 2017 and April 28, 2017, four related putative 2 shareholder derivative lawsuits (the “Related Derivative Actions”)1 were filed in or transferred to 3 this Court purportedly on behalf Nominal Defendant PayPal Holdings, Inc. (“PayPal” or 4 “Nominal Defendant”), asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and 5 violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Daniel H. Schulman, 6 John D. Rainey, Patrick L.A. Dupuis, Wences Casares, Jonathan Christodoro, John J. Donahoe, 7 David W. Dorman, Gail J. McGovern, David M. Moffett, Pierre M. Omidyar and Frank D. Yeary 8 (the “Individual Defendants”); 9 WHEREAS, on June 30, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the Related 10 Derivative Actions under the caption In re PayPal Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative 11 Litigation, Lead Case No. 5:17-cv-00162-RS (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), and 12 designating Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action (the 13 “Consolidation Order”); 14 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2017, in accordance with the Consolidation Order, Plaintiffs 15 designated the complaint filed in Liss v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02446-RS as the 16 operative complaint in this Consolidated Derivative Action (the “Operative Complaint”); 17 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Consolidation Order, the parties have met and 18 conferred regarding a briefing schedule for PayPal’s and the Individual Defendants’ anticipated 19 motions to dismiss; 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties listed below, by their undersigned counsel, subject to approval of the Court, as follows: 22 1. PayPal shall have forty-five (45) days from the Court’s order approving this 23 stipulation to file and serve its motion to dismiss the Operative Complaint pursuant Fed. R. Civ. 24 23.1 (the “Company’s Motion to Dismiss”); 25 26 27 28 1 Silverman v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00162-RS; Seeman v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02206-RS; Sims v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02428-RS; and Liss v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02446-RS. STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS - (LEAD CASE NO. 5:17-CV-000162-RS) OHSUSA:767220484.1 1 2 3 4 5 2. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss within forty-five (45) days after service of the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. 3. PayPal shall file and serve its reply, if any, to Plaintiffs’ opposition within twenty (20) days after service of Plaintiffs’ opposition. 4. The Individual Defendants shall not be required to answer or otherwise respond to 6 the Operative Complaint unless and until the Court issues a ruling denying the Company’s 7 Motion to Dismiss. In the event the Court denies the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, the parties 8 shall meet and confer within seven (7) days of that ruling and propose a schedule with the Court 9 regarding further proceedings in the Consolidated Derivative Action, including the filing of the 10 Individual Defendants’ answers or any anticipated motions to dismiss. 11 Dated: August 14, 2017 12 13 JAMES N. KRAMER ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES SUZETTE J. PRINGLE Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP /s/ Alexander K. Talarides ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES 14 15 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant PayPal Holdings, Inc., and Individual Defendants Daniel H. Schulman, John D. Rainey, Patrick L.A. Dupuis, Wences Casares, Jonathan Christodoro, John J. Donahoe, David W. Dorman, Gail J. McGovern, David M. Moffett, Pierre M. Omidyar and Frank D. Yeary 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I, Alexander K. Talarides, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule for Motions to Dismiss. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Shane P. Sanders has concurred in this filing. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1OHSUSA:767220484.1 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS - (LEAD CASE NO. 5:17-CV-000162-RS) 1 Dated: August 14, 2017 SHANE P. SANDERS ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 2 3 /s/ Shane P. Sanders Shane P. Sanders 4 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs Steve Sims and Edith Liss and Co-Lead Counsel for All Plaintiffs 6 7 8 *** 9 ORDER 10 Based on the stipulation of the signed parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 11 ORDERED that the Stipulation is approved. 12 It is so ORDERED. 13 14 15 8/14/17 DATED: _______________________ THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2OHSUSA:767220484.1 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS - (LEAD CASE NO. 5:17-CV-000162-RS)

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?