Bonner v. Melo et al

Filing 26

ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 24 MOTION TO DISMISS - Responses due by 2/7/2018. Replies due by 2/22/2018. Motion Hearing reset for 3/7/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/02/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2018)

Download PDF
1 ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264) 2 FELIPE J. ARROYO (163803) STEVEN R. WEDEKING (235759) 3 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 4 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 5 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com 6 swedeking@robbinsarroyo.com 7 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel on signature page] 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IN RE AMYRIS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-04719-WHO ____________________________________ STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS This Document Relates To: (Consolidated with No. 3:17-cv-04927) ALL ACTIONS. Hon. William H. Orrick Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-04719-WHO WHEREAS, on November 3, 2017, Plaintiffs designated their operative complaint (the 1 2 "Complaint") in this consolidated action; WHEREAS, on November 17, 2017, parties filed a Stipulated Schedule on Motion to 3 4 Dismiss (Dkt. 20), which the Court ordered on November 22, 2017 (Dkt. 20); WHEREAS, on December 21, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the 5 6 Complaint (Dkt. 24); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are scheduled to file their opposition to Defendants' Motion to 7 8 Dismiss by February 2, 2018; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and, in light of scheduling conflicts by 9 10 Plaintiffs' counsel, agree that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss should be extended until February 7, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate and agree, and 12 13 respectfully request, that the Court enter an order as follows: 14 1. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their opposition shall be extended until February 7, 16 3. Deadline for Defendants to file any reply shall remain February 22, 2018. 17 4. The hearing, as set by the Court, shall remain on calendar for March 7, 2018. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 15 2018. 19 Dated: January 31, 2018 20 21 ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS FELIPE J. ARROYO STEVEN R. WEDEKING /s/ Steven R. Wedeking STEVEN R. WEDEKING 22 23 26 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com swedeking@robbinsarroyo.com 27 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 24 25 28 -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-04719-WHO 1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP MICHAEL D. CELIO LAURIE CARR MIMS MATAN SHACHAM Dated: January 31, 2018 2 3 /s/ Michael D. Celio MICHAEL D. CELIO 4 8 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: mcelio@keker.com lmims@keker.com mshacham@keker.com 9 Counsel for Defendants 5 6 7 10 SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 11 12 I, Steven R. Wedeking, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used 13 to file the foregoing document. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that 14 concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 15 Dated: January 31, 2018 /s/ Steven R. Wedeking STEVEN R. WEDEKING 16 17 18 **** 19 ORDER 20 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 February 2, 2018 DATED: _______________________ ______________________________________ HON. WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 25 26 27 28 -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Lead Case No. 3:17-cv-04719-WHO

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?