Arora v. GoPro, Inc. et al
Filing
16
ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DEADLINES by Judge William H. Orrick granting 15 Stipulation. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB No. 126930)
smuck@fenwick.com
CATHERINE D. KEVANE (CSB No. 215501)
ckevane@fenwick.com
MARIE C. BAFUS (CSB No. 258417)
mbafus@fenwick.com
VINCENT BARREDO (CSB No. 275518)
vbarredo@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.875.2300
Facsimile:
415.281.1350
Attorneys for Defendants GoPro, Inc., Nicholas D.
Woodman and Brian T. McGee
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
LAW
AT
SAN FRA NCI S CO
ATTO RNEY S
F ENWICK & W ES T LLP
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
14
VIKAS ARORA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
15
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00265-WHO
Plaintiff,
CLASS ACTION
16
17
v.
GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS D. WOODMAN
AND BRIAN T. MCGEE,
18
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME
TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
AND CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
ASSOCIATED DEADLINES
19
Date Action Filed: January 11, 2018
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00265-WHO
1
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, Plaintiff Vikas Arora (“Plaintiff”), individually and on
2
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint captioned Arora v.
3
GoPro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00265-WHO against defendants GoPro, Inc., Nicholas
4
Woodman, and Brian McGee (collectively, “Defendants” and with Plaintiff, the “Parties”)
5
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
6
(“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission
7
(“SEC”) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (the “Complaint”);
8
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, this Court issued an Order Setting Initial case
9
Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 6) in the above-captioned action, setting
10
1.
March 27, 2018 for the parties to comply with certain requirements under the
LAW
AT
SAN FRA NCI S CO
12
ATTO RNEY S
F ENWICK & W ES T LLP
11
the following deadlines:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Northern District of California Civil
13
Local Rules (“Local Rules” or “Civ. L.R.”) and Alternative Dispute Resolution
14
(“ADR”) Local Rules regarding discovery, early settlement, and the ADR Multi-
15
Option Program;
16
2.
April 10, 2018 for the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial
17
disclosures or state objections in the Rule 26(f) Report, and file a Joint Case
18
Management Statement; and
19
3.
April 17, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. for an initial case management conference;
20
WHEREAS, the Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws that are subject
21
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (1995),
22
(“PSLRA”), which sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class
23
actions, including a specific process for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to
24
represent the putative class;
25
WHEREAS, lead plaintiff and lead counsel have not yet been appointed pursuant to
26
Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4. The deadline to move for
27
appointment as lead plaintiff is March 12, 2018;
28
STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER
1
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00265-WHO
1
WHEREAS, once selected, the lead plaintiff will then appoint a lead counsel, subject to
2
the Court’s approval, § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), and identify an operative complaint or file an amended
3
complaint that becomes the operative complaint;
4
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that in the interests of judicial economy, conservation of
5
time and resources, and orderly management of this action, no response to any pleading in this
6
action by any Defendant should occur until after (i) a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed
7
by the Court pursuant to the PSLRA, and (iii) such lead plaintiff serves an operative complaint;
WHEREAS, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to vacate the April 17,
9
2018 initial case management conference and associated ADR deadlines until such time as the
10
Court has the opportunity to rule on the appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead
11
counsel; and
LAW
AT
SAN FRA NCI S CO
12
ATTO RNEY S
F ENWICK & W ES T LLP
8
13
14
WHEREAS, the Parties hereby stipulate, and respectfully request the Court to order, as
follows:
1.
Within 14 days of an order by the Court appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel,
15
Defendants and any lead plaintiff(s) appointed by the Court shall, through their respective
16
counsel, confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule for the filing of any amended complaint
17
and for the filing of a responsive pleading, including a briefing schedule with respect to any
18
anticipated motions to dismiss;
19
2.
Defendants shall not be required to answer, move, or otherwise substantively
20
respond to the Complaint or any amended complaint until the date agreed upon by the Parties in
21
the proposed schedule described in paragraph 1 above, if approved by the Court, or until such
22
other further order by the Court.
23
3.
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the initial case management conference scheduled for
24
April 17, 2018 shall be vacated, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of
25
Civil Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for a date after the filing of any amended
26
complaint or after the Court rules on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, as the Court
27
determines to be appropriate; and all associated ADR Multi-Option Program deadlines likewise
28
be deferred.
STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER
2
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00265-WHO
1
4.
Nothing in this Stipulation is intended in any way to waive or affect any rights,
2
claims, defenses, objections or arguments that any party may have with respect to any matter,
3
other than those expressly addressed and agreed in paragraphs 1 through 3 above.
4
5
Dated: January 19, 2018
6
By: /s/ Catherine D. Kevane
Catherine D. Kevane
7
Attorneys for Defendants GoPro, Inc., Nicholas D.
Woodman and Brian T. McGee
8
9
Dated: January 19, 2018
10
LAW
AT
SAN FRA NCI S CO
ATTO RNEY S
F ENWICK & W ES T LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Vikas Arora
12
14
POMERANTZ LLP
By: /s/ Jennifer Pafiti
Jennifer Pafiti
11
13
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all signatories concur in filing this stipulation.
Dated: January 19, 2018
15
16
By: /s/ Catherine D. Kevane
Catherine D. Kevane
***
17
ORDER
18
19
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: January 19, 2018
21
The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER
3
Case No.: 3:18-cv-00265-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?