David Guerra v. Linear Technology Corp. et al
Filing
27
STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/24/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DAVID J. BERGER, State Bar No. 147645
CATHERINE E. MORENO, State Bar No. 264517
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
Email: dberger@wsgr.com
cmoreno@wsgr.com
Attorneys for Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
BARBARA A. ROHR, State Bar No. 273353
BENJAMINE HEIKALI, State Bar No. 307466
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com
bheikali@faruqilaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
DAVID GUERRA, On Behalf of Himself and All )
Others Similarly Situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP., ROBERT H. )
SWANSON, JR., LOTHAR MAIER, ARTHUR )
C. AGNOS, JOHN J. GORDON, DAVID S.
)
LEE, RICHARD M. MOLEY and THOMAS S. )
VOLPE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
CASE NO.: 4:16-cv-05514-PJH
STIPULATED [PROPOSED]
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Before: Honorable Phyllis Hamilton
Courtroom: 3-3rd Floor
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05514-PJH
1
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, plaintiff David Guerra (“Plaintiff”) commenced a
2
Class Action for Violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
3
and Rule 14a-9 (the “Action”), against defendants Linear Technology Corp. (“Linear”), Robert
4
H. Swanson, Jr., Lothar Maier, Arthur C. Agnos, John J. Gordon, David S. Lee, Richard M.
5
Moley, and Thomas S. Volpe (collectively, “Defendants”);
6
WHEREAS, the Action alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
7
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder
8
by causing an allegedly material incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
9
Statement (the “Proxy”) to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)
10
on September 16, 2016, which recommended that Linear stockholders vote in favor of approving
11
a proposed transaction between Linear and Analog Devices, Inc. (the “Proposed Transaction”);
12
13
14
15
16
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2016, Linear filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, providing
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy;
WHEREAS, during a special meeting of Linear stockholders held on October 18, 2016,
Linear stockholders voted to approve the Proposed Transaction;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff believes that the supplemental disclosures contained in Linear’s
17
October 12, 2016 Form 8-K addressed certain of Plaintiff’s allegations and claims under Section
18
14(a) of the Exchange Act;
19
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have reached an agreement with respect to the
20
payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses based on the benefits Plaintiff claims were provided by
21
the supplemental disclosures set forth in Linear’s October 12, 2016 Form 8-K, and Defendants
22
have agreed to provide Plaintiff with a single payment of $195,000 in attorneys’ fees and
23
expenses;
24
WHEREAS, based on the proceedings to date, Plaintiff has determined that certain
25
claims asserted in this Action have been mooted and the remaining claims are so unlikely to be
26
successful as to warrant dismissal;
27
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION
2
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05514-PJH
1
WHEREAS, Defendants deny the allegations in the Action and expressly maintain that
2
they acted diligently and scrupulously, and complied with all applicable fiduciary, disclosure,
3
and other legal duties;
4
5
WHEREAS, it is the intention of counsel for Plaintiff in this Action to dismiss the Action
with prejudice as to Plaintiff;
6
WHEREAS, no class has been certified in the Action;
7
NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, Plaintiff and Defendants, by
8
9
10
and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Action shall be dismissed, and the claims asserted therein shall be dismissed with
prejudice as to Plaintiff.
11
12
Dated: October 21, 2016
13
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
14
By: /s/ Catherine E. Moreno
Catherine E. Moreno
cmoreno@wsgr.com
15
16
17
Attorneys for Defendants
Linear Technology Corp., Robert H.
Swanson, Jr., Lothar Maier, Arthur C.
Agnos, John J. Gordon, David S. Lee,
Richard M. Moley and Thomas S. Volpe
18
19
20
21
Dated: October 21, 2016
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
22
By: /s/ Barbara A. Rohr
Barbara A. Rohr
brohr@faruqilaw.com
23
24
Attorneys for Plaintiff
David Guerra
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION
3
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-05514-PJH
1
2
ATTESTATION
I, Catherine E. Moreno, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being
3
used to file this Stipulated [Proposed] Order Dismissing Action. I hereby attest that Barbara A.
4
Rohr has concurred in this filing.
5
6
Dated: October 21, 2016
7
8
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
By: /s/ Catherine E. Moreno
Catherine E. Moreno
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulated [Proposed] Order Dismissing Action
4
Case No.: 4:16-cv-05514-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
PROPOSED ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Class Action
Complaint for Violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 14a-9 is dismissed, and the claims asserted therein are dismissed with prejudice as to
Plaintiff.
7
8
9
October 24
DATED: ______________, 2016
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
11
Honorable Phyllis IS SO OR
IT J. Hamilton
United States District Judge ilton
UNIT
ED
S
__________________________________________
RT
U
O
10
14
R NIA
A
H
ER
FO
hyl
Judge P
LI
RT
13
m
lis J. Ha
NO
12
DERED
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulated [Proposed] Order Dismissing Action
Case No.: 4:16-cv-05514-PJH
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?