City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER SUGGESTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OR REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORT IN CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTIONS. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/08/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

OLGA RATINOVA, derivatively on behalf of
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN JOHNSON et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

LISA E. COPPOLA, IRA, derivatively on
behalf of JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
Plaintiff,

19
20

v.

21

KEVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

22

Defendants.

23

and

24
25

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-04792-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-04003-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-06667-LHK

ORDER SUGGESTING STIPULATION
OF DISMISSAL OR REQUIRING JOINT
STATUS REPORT IN CONSOLIDATED
DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

26
27
28

1
Case No.: 11-CV-04792-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-04003-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-06667-LHK
ORDER SUGGESTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OR REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORT IN
CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTIONS

1
2

CITY OF ROYAL OAK RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

3
4

v.

6

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., KEVIN R.
JOHNSON, ROBYN M. DENHOLM, and
SCOTT G. KRIENS,

7

Defendants.

5

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay proceedings in this

10

action until an order was entered by the Court denying the motion to dismiss in the related class

11

action, City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-CV-

12

04003-LHK (the “Class Action”). See ECF No. 43. If the motion to dismiss were denied, the

13

parties stipulated that Plaintiffs would have thirty days to file an amended complaint. Id.

14

On July 23, 2012, the Court granted Juniper’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, and

15

granted Kriens’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. See Class Action, ECF No. 84. On May

16

17, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the

17

Class Action, though this time with prejudice. See Class Action, ECF No. 105.

18

Accordingly, by July 12, 2013, the parties in Ratinova v. Johnson et al, Case No.: 11-CV-

19

04792-LHK, as well as Coppola v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al, Case No. 11-CV-06667-LHK,

20

shall either file a Stipulation of Dismissal or a Joint Status Report in which the parties set forth

21

good cause why the case shall not be dismissed.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: July 8, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-CV-04792-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-04003-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-CV-06667-LHK
ORDER SUGGESTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OR REQUIRING JOINT STATUS REPORT IN
CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTIONS