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)
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?