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)

Download PDF
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?