Desilvio v. LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al

Filing 39

ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL 10 10 13 13 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEONARD DESILVIO,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER APPOINTING LEAD
PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL

v.

9
10

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-02086-SI

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 13, 20

12

Before the Court are three motions. Dkt. Nos. 10, 13, 20.1 The motions seek consolidation

13

of two related actions, Desilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., 17-cv-2086-SI and Kuc v. Lion

14

Biotechnologies, Inc., 17-cv-2188-SI. Three separate movants each originally sought appointment

15

as lead plaintiff in this putative securities class action. The movants are: (1) Kimberly Colautti

16

and Michele Rosati (together, “Colautti and Rosati”), Dkt. No. 10; (2) Jay Rabkin (“Rabkin”),

17

Dkt. No. 13; and (3) Su Yee Lynn Ho, Sriram Sundareswaran, Manfred E. Strauch, and Kevin

18

Fong (together, the “Lion Investor Group” or “LIG”), Dkt. No. 20. However, Colautti and Rosati

19

filed a statement of non-opposition to the competing motions, Dkt. No. 24, and the Lion Investor

20

Group has withdrawn its motion, Dkt. No. 37. In addition, the plaintiff in the Kuc action has

21

voluntarily dismissed that case. See Kuc, 3:17-cv-2188-SI, Dkt. No. 11.

22

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for

23

resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2017. The

24

Court hereby GRANTS Rabkin’s unopposed motion for appointment as lead counsel, GRANTS

25

Rabkin’s request for appointment of Kessler Topaz as class counsel, DENIES Colautti and

26

Rosati’s and LIG’s competing motions, and DENIES AS MOOT the motions to consolidate.

27
28

1

Unless otherwise noted, ECF docket entries refer to the Desilvio action, 3:17-cv-2086-SI.

1

The Desilvio complaint is now the operative complaint in this case. To the extent he has

2

not already done so, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to serve defendant with the complaint.

3

Defendants then have either 21 days from the date of service or 21 days from the date of this

4

order, whichever is later, to file a responsive pleading or motion.

5
6

This order resolves Dkt. Nos. 10, 13, 20.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: July 26, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2