Herrera v. ShoreTel., Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER VOLUNTARILY DISMISSING ACTION AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/22/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

KEVIN P. MUCK (CSB No. 120918)
[e-mail]
MARIE C. BAFUS (CSB No. 258417)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.875.2300
Facsimile:
415.281.1350
FELIX S. LEE (CSB No. 197084)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone:
650.988.8500
Facsimile:
650.938.5200
Attorneys for Defendants
ShoreTel, Inc., Shane Robison, Don Joos,
Marjorie Bowen, Mark Bregman, Kenneth
Denman, Charles Kissner, Constance Skidmore
and Josef Vejvoda

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

ARMANDO HERRERA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

18
Plaintiff,
19
v.

Case No.: 17-cv-4988-WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER
VOLUNTARILY DISMISSING
ACTION AS MOOT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

20
21
22
23
24
25

SHORETEL, INC., SHANE ROBISON, DON
JOOS, MARJORIE BOWEN, MARK
BREGMAN, KENNETH DENMAN,
CHARLES KISSNER, CONSTANCE
SKIDMORE, JOSEF VEJVODA, MITEL US
HOLDINGS, INC., SHELBY ACQUISITION
CORPORATION, and MITEL NETWORKS
CORPORATION,
Defendants.

26
27
28

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Case No. 17-cv-04988-WHO

1
2

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017, Plaintiff Armando Herrera filed the above-captioned

3 action (the “Herrera Action”);
4

WHEREAS, five other substantially similar actions have been filed in this Court, styled

5 Scarantino v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04857-YRG (the “Scarantino Action”),
6 Frydman v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04865-BLF (the “Frydman Action”), Mozee v.
7 ShoreTel, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04888-HSG (the “Mozee Action”), Simonson v. ShoreTel,
8 Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04931-WHA (the “Herrera Action”), and De Angelis v. ShoreTel,
9 Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05091-WHO (the “De Angelis Action”), all of which are collectively
10 referred to with the Herrera Action as the “Actions”;
WHEREAS, the Actions challenged disclosures made in connection with the proposed

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12 acquisition of ShoreTel, Inc. (“ShoreTel”), by Mitel Networks Corporation and its subsidiaries

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

13 (collectively, “Mitel”), pursuant to a definitive agreement and plan of merger filed with the United
14 States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on or around July 26, 2017 (the
15 “Transaction”);
16

WHEREAS, the Actions asserted claims for, inter alia, Defendants’ alleged violations of

17 Sections 14 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in ShoreTel’s Solicitation/
18 Recommendation Statement (the “Solicitation Statement”), filed with the SEC on or around
19 August 17, 2017;
20

WHEREAS, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have asserted any meritorious claim, deny that

21 the Solicitation Statement contained any misstatement or omission, and deny that any further
22 information is required under any federal or state law;
23

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017, ShoreTel filed an amendment to the Solicitation

24 Statement that included certain additional information relating to the Transaction that addressed
25 and mooted claims regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures in the Solicitation Statement as
26 alleged in the Actions (the “Supplemental Disclosures”);
27

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Herrera’s counsel believes they may assert a claim for a fee in

28 connection with the prosecution of the Herrera Action and the issuance of the Supplemental

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

1

Case No. 17-cv-04988-WHO

1 Disclosures, and have informed Defendants of their intention to petition the Court for such a fee if
2 their claim cannot be resolved through negotiations between counsel for Plaintiffs in the Actions
3 and Defendants (the “Fee Application”);
4

WHEREAS, for the sake of judicial economy and the convenience of all parties, counsel

5 for plaintiffs in all of the Actions have coordinated their efforts and intend to file any Fee
6 Application jointly in the Scarantino Action, which was the first-filed of the Actions;
7

WHEREAS, all of the Defendants in the Actions reserve all rights, arguments and

8 defenses, including the right to oppose any potential Fee Application and the right to dispute
9 which Court should address any Fee Application;
WHEREAS, no class has been certified in the Actions;

11

WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt, no compensation in any form has passed directly

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12 or indirectly to Plaintiff Herrera or his attorneys and no promise, understanding, or agreement to

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

10

13 give any such compensation has been made, nor have the parties had any discussions concerning
14 the amount of any mootness fee application;
15
16
17

NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties stipulate and agree
as follows:
1.

The Herrera Action is dismissed, all claims asserted therein are dismissed with

18

prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and all claims on behalf of the putative class are dismissed without

19

prejudice.

20

2.

21
22

Because the dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and not on behalf of a

putative class, notice of this dismissal is not required.
3.

If a Fee Application becomes necessary, Plaintiff Herrera’s counsel may seek a fee

23 by joining in the Fee Application to be filed in the Scarantino Action where the Court will retain
24 jurisdiction, as appropriate, for the Fee Application.
25

4.

This Stipulation, and any Order thereon, are made without prejudice to any right,

26

position, claim or defense any party may assert with respect to the Fee Application, which

27

includes the Defendants’ right to oppose the Fee Application and the right to dispute which Court

28

should address any Fee Application.

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

2

Case No. 17-cv-04988-WHO

1

Dated: September 21, 2017

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &
HERZ, LLP

2
3

By

/s/ Rachele R. Rickert
Rachele R. Rickert

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff Armando Herrera

5
6
7

Dated: September 21, 2017

FENWICK & WEST LLP

8
By

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants ShoreTel, Inc., Shane
Robison, Don Joos, Marjorie Bowen, Mark
Bregman, Kenneth Denman, Charles Kissner,
Constance Skidmore and Josef Vejvoda

11

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

/s/ Kevin P. Muck
Kevin P. Muck

13
14

Dated: September 21, 2017

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP

15
16

By

/s/ Andrew Gordon
Andrew Gordon

17

Attorneys for Defendants Mitel US Holdings, Inc.,
Shelby Acquisition Corporation and Mitel Networks
Corporation

18
19
20
*

21
22
23

*

*

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all signatories concur in the filing of this
stipulation.

24
Dated: September 21, 2017
25
26

/s/ Kevin P. Muck
Kevin P. Muck

27
28

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

3

Case No. 17-cv-04988-WHO

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

The Herrera Action is dismissed, all claims asserted therein are dismissed with

4

prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and all claims on behalf of the putative class are dismissed without

5

prejudice.

6

2.

7
8
9
10

putative class, notice of this dismissal is not required.
3.

If a Fee Application becomes necessary, Plaintiff Herrera’s counsel may seek a fee

by filing, jointly with counsel for plaintiffs in the other Actions, a Fee Application in this action,
and the Court will retain jurisdiction, as appropriate, for that joint Fee Application.
4.

This Stipulation, and any Order thereon, are made without prejudice to any right,

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

Because the dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff only, and not on behalf of a

position, claim or defense any party may assert with respect to the Fee Application, which

13

includes the Defendants’ right to oppose the Fee Application and the right to dispute which Court

14

should address any Fee Application.

15
16

Dated: _September 22, 2017____________________
______________________________________

17

The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

4

Case No. 17-cv-04988-WHO