Copeland v. Apotheker et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying motion to relate C-12-0622DMR to C-12-6003CRB. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 2/24/2014. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
1 MARC WOLINSKY (pro hac vice)
GEORGE T. CONWAY III (pro hac vice)
2 VINCENT G. LEVY (pro hac vice)
51 West 52nd Street
3 New York, NY 10019
Tel./Fax: [phone]
4 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
5 [e-mail]
6 FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP
NEIL A. GOTEINER, State Bar No. 83524
7 THOMAS B. MAYHEW, State Bar No. 183539
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
8 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel./Fax: [phone]
9 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
10
Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
11 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
15 SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
This motion also relates to:
)
)
)
A.J. COPELAND,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
LÉO APOTHEKER; MARGARET C.
)
WHITMAN; RAYMOND J. LANE; MARC L.
ANDREESSEN; SHUMEET BANERJI; RAJIV )
L. GUPTA; JOHN H. HAMMERGREN; ANN M. )
LIVERMORE; GARY M. REINER; PATRICIA )
)
F. RUSSO; G. KENNEDY THOMPSON;
RAYMOND E. OZZIE; JAMES A. SKINNER; )
)
ROBERT R. BENNETT; RALPH V.
)
WHITWORTH; and MICHAEL R. LYNCH,
)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING COPELAND’S
ADMIN. MOT. TO RELATE CASE
NOS. 12-CV-6003-CRB AND 14-CV-00622-DMR

Master File No. 12-CV-6003-CRB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
COPELAND’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL
L.R. 3-12(b)

CASE NO.: 14-CV-00622-DMR

1
2

Defendants,
– and –

3 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
4 Nominal Defendant.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING COPELAND’S
ADMIN. MOT. TO RELATE CASE
NOS. 12-CV-6003-CRB AND 14-CV-00622-DMR

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff Copeland’s Administrative Motion

2 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(b). The Court, having considered the papers in support of and in
3 opposition to the Motion, the pleadings and file in this action, and all other matters properly
4 before the Court, being fully advised in the proceedings, and for good cause appearing:
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff Copeland’s

6 Administrative Motion Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(b) is DENIED.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: February 24, 2014
HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING COPELAND’S
ADMIN. MOT. TO RELATE CASE
NOS. 12-CV-6003-CRB AND 14-CV-00622-DMR

1