De Angelis 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

GIANFRANCA DE ANGELIS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

18
Plaintiff,
19
v.

Case No.: 17-cv-5091-WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER
VOLUNTARILY DISMISSING
ACTION AS MOOT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

20
21
22

SHORETEL, INC., SHANE ROBISON, DON
JOOS, MARJORIE BOWEN, MARK
BREGMAN, KENNETH DENMAN,
CHARLES KISSNER, CONSTANCE
SKIDMORE, and JOSEF VEJVODA,

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Case No. 17-cv-05091-WHO

1
2

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2017, Plaintiff Gianfranca De Angelis filed the above-

3 captioned action (the “De Angelis 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-YGR (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 “Simonson Action”) and Herrera v. ShoreTel,
9 Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04988-WHO (the “Herrera Action”), all of which are collectively
10 referred to with the De Angelis 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 De Angelis’s counsel believes they may assert a claim for a fee in

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

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

1

Case No. 17-cv-05091-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 De Angelis or her attorneys and no promise, understanding, or agreement

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

10

13 to give any such compensation has been made, nor have the parties had any discussions
14 concerning 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 De Angelis 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 De Angelis’s counsel may seek a

23

fee by joining in the Fee Application to be filed in the Scarantino Action where the Court will

24

retain 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-05091-WHO

1

Dated: September 21, 2017

WEISSLAW LLP

2
3

By

/s/ Joel E. Elkins
Joel E. Elkins

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gianfranca De Angelis

5
6
7

Dated: September 21, 2017

FENWICK & WEST LLP

8
By

/s/ Kevin P. Muck
Kevin P. Muck

9
10

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

LAW
AT

SAN FRA NCI S CO

12

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

11

13
*

14
15

*

*

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

16

stipulation.

17

Dated: September 21, 2017

18
19

/s/ Kevin P. Muck
Kevin P. Muck

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

3

Case No. 17-cv-05091-WHO

1

ORDER

2

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

3

1.

The De Angelis 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 De Angelis’s counsel may seek a

fee by joining in the Fee Application to be filed in the Scarantino Action, where the Court will
retain jurisdiction, as appropriate, for the 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-05091-WHO