Mazzaferro v. Aruba Networks Inc et al
Filing
57
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION; CONTINUING HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 3, 2013; AND REQUESTING PERSPECTIVES RE PENDING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 38 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel < /i>, 23 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel , 15 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel (1) Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and (2) Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, 26 MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel . Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2013 is CONTINUED TO 9/10/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/29/2013. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
PAUL MAZZAFERRO, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
vs.
ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., DOMINIC P.
ORR, MICHAEL M. GALVIN, and KEERTI
MELKOTE,
Case No.: 13-cv-02342-YGR
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FROM GOLD BENNETT CERA
& SIDENER LLP AND CERTIFICATION FROM
PAR INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.;
CONTINUING HEARING SCHEDULED FOR
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013; AND REQUESTING
PERSPECTIVES REGARDING PENDING PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATIONS
Defendants.
15
16
Six motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the Court. (Dkt. Nos.
17
18
15, 16, 23, 26, 33 & 38.) The motions filed by (i) John Wheeler, Erhan Erdem, and Obie Nevels
19
(The Aruba Investor Group) and (ii) Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the
20
Virgin Islands and District No. 9, I.A. of M. & A.W. Pension Trust (Pension Funds) have been
21
withdrawn. (See Dkt. Nos. 44 & 53, respectively.) As such, this Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 16 &
22
33.
23
Two proposed lead plaintiffs filed non-oppositions to all of the competing motions. (See
24
Dkt. No. 45 [filed by Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis] and Dkt. No. 43
25
[filed by Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
26
Retirement System].) The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a non-opposition to PAR
27
Investment Partners, L.P.’s motion. (Dkt. No. 47.)
28
1
The Court hereby ORDERS that proposed lead counsel for PAR Investment Partners, L.P.,
2
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP (“Gold Bennett”), provide additional information to the Court
3
regarding its experience and expertise in securities litigation. The information shall include
4
substantiation of Gold Bennett’s “long history of prosecuting cases such as this case.” Gold
5
Bennett shall also identify which attorneys will be principally responsible on this matter.
6
7
In addition, the Court ORDERS PAR Investment Partners, L.P. to provide a certification that
complies with Civ. L.R. 3-7(c).
8
The hearing scheduled for September 3, 2013 is hereby CONTINUED to September 10, 2013
9
at 2:00 p.m. The additional information from Gold Bennett and certification from PAR Investment
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Partners shall be filed by September 3, 2013.
Finally, the Court notes that motions for leave to appear pro hac vice have been filed by two
12
attorneys representing The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The Court requests the
13
perspectives of proposed lead plaintiffs, if any, on whether it is necessary to allow pro hac
14
admission of counsel in light of The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System’s non-opposition to
15
PAR Investment Partner’s motion. Such information shall be filed by September 3, 2013.
16
This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 16 & 33.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: August 29, 2013
___________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?