Wu v. Stitt et al

Filing 64

STIPULATION AND ORDER 62 Extending Deadlines for Briefing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Setting Schedule for Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/6/08. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2008)

Download PDF
In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Doc. 64 1 COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 2 JOHN K. GRANT (169813) SHAWN A. WILLIAMS (213113) 3 MONIQUE C. WINKLER (213031) AELISH M. BAIG (201279) 4 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 5 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) 6 johng@csgrr.com shawnw@csgrr.com 7 mwinkler@csgrr.com abaig@csgrr.com *E-FILED - 2/6/08* 8 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 9 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14 In re EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE 15 LITIGATION 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C-07-02268-RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff filed his First Amended Consolidated Complaint in this action on 2 October 11, 2007; 3 WHEREAS, Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. ("Extreme") filed its Motion to Dismiss and 4 supporting papers on November 26, 2007, contending that Lead Plaintiff lacks standing to sue in this 5 derivative action and has not alleged facts showing that pre-litigation demand upon Extreme's Board 6 of Directors was excused as required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.1; 7 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff's Opposition to Extreme's Motion to Dismiss in this action is due 8 Friday, January 25, 2007; 9 WHEREAS, the court has set a hearing date for Extreme's Motion to Dismiss for March 14, 10 2008 at 9:00 a.m.; 11 WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff has requested an agreement from Defendants allowing Lead 12 Plaintiff leave to amend the First Amended Consolidated Complaint in order to address the 13 arguments raised in Extreme's Motion to Dismiss; 14 WHEREAS, Defendants agree, subject to Court approval, that Lead Plaintiff may be granted 15 leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in an effort to address the arguments raised in Extreme's 16 Motion to Dismiss; 17 WHEREAS, in the event the Court grants a renewed motion to dismiss as to the Second 18 Amended Complaint, Defendants will contend, and plaintiffs may oppose, that further leave to 19 amend should be denied by the Court; 20 WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agree that Lead Plaintiff shall no later 21 than February 25, 2008 file a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint; 22 WHEREAS, there has been one previous continuance sought in connection with the briefing 23 related to Extreme's Motion to Dismiss, and the agreed-upon schedule is not for the purpose of 24 delay, promotes judicial efficiency, and will not cause prejudice to any party, 25 THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by Lead Plaintiff and Defendants, 26 through their respective counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court as follows: 27 28 STIPULATION & [] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON DEFS' MTD & SETTING SCHEDULE FOR SECOND AMD CONSOL. CPT - C-07-02268-RMW -1- 1 2 SCHEDULE Lead Plaintiff shall have until no later than February 25, 2008 to file a Second Amended 3 Consolidated Complaint. Defendants shall file and serve an answer or motion attacking the Second 4 Amended Consolidated Complaint no later than April 10, 2008. The hearing currently scheduled for 5 March 14, 2008 is hereby VACATED. 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 DATED: January 24, 2008 COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP JOHN K. GRANT 10 SHAWN A. WILLIAMS MONIQUE C. WINKLER 11 AELISH M. BAIG 9 12 13 /s Shawn A. Williams SHAWN A. WILLIAMS 8 14 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 15 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) 16 COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 17 RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP DARREN J. ROBBINS 18 TRAVIS E. DOWNS III KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF 19 JAMES I. JACONETTE BENNY C. GOODMAN III 20 MARY LYNNE CALKINS 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 21 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 22 619/231-7423 (fax) 23 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION & [] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON DEFS' MTD & SETTING SCHEDULE FOR SECOND AMD CONSOL. CPT - C-07-02268-RMW -2- 1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2 JOHN H. HEMANN JOSEPH E. FLOREN 3 JONATHAN M. DEGOOYER LAURA A. LEE 4 5 6 /s Joseph E. Floren JOSEPH E. FLOREN One Market, Spear Street Tower 7 San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Telephone: 415/442-1000 8 415/442-1001 (fax) 9 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. 10 I, Shawn A. Williams, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 11 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Deadlines for Briefing on Defendants' Motion to 12 Dismiss and Setting Schedule for Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In compliance with 13 General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Joseph E. Floren of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP has 14 concurred in this filing. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION & [] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON DEFS' MTD & SETTING SCHEDULE FOR SECOND AMD CONSOL. CPT - C-07-02268-RMW T:\CasesSF\Extreme Networks\STP00048454.doc * * ORDER * PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2/6/08 DATED: _________________________ THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3- 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 24, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail 4 addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have 5 mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF 6 participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. 7 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 24, 2008. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s Shawn A. Williams SHAWN A. WILLIAMS COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/288-4545 415/288-4534 (fax) E-mail:ShawnW@csgrr.com CAND-ECF Page 1 of 2 Mailing Information for a Case 5:07-cv-02268-RMW Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. Marie Baig AelishB@csgrr.com Aelish Bramson rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com Robert DeGooyer jdegooyer@morganlewis.com,lwalker@morganlewis.com Jonathan Edward Floren jfloren@morganlewis.com,rluke@morganlewis.com Joseph Henry Hemann jhemann@morganlewis.com,ycano@morganlewis.com John Alexis Lee llee@morganlewis.com Laura R Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com Alan Roth Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com Alan Shachmurove mshachmurove@sbtklaw.com Emanuel A. Williams shawnw@csgrr.com,khuang@csgrr.com,moniquew@csgrr.com,e_file_sf@csgrr.com,cwood@csgr Shawn L. Zagar ezagar@sbtklaw.com,kpopovich@sbtklaw.com,der_filings@sbtklaw.com,rwinchester@sbtklaw.co Eric Manual Notice List The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients. L Timothy Fisher Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?210928244206634-L_685_0-1 1/24/2008 CAND-ECF Page 2 of 2 2125 Oak Grove Road Suite 102 Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Eric Lechtzin Schiffrin Barroway Topaz Kessler LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Laura A Lee Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?210928244206634-L_685_0-1 1/24/2008

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?