Woburn Retirement System v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 133

STIPULATION AND ORDER 132 Extending Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 9/21/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DOUGLAS J. CLARK, State Bar No. 171499
Email: [e-mail]
CYNTHIA A. DY, State Bar No. 172761
Email: [e-mail]
ANGIE YOUNG KIM, State Bar No. 270503
Email: [e-mail]
NICHOLAS R. MILLER, State Bar No. 274243
Email: [e-mail]
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
SHAW HONG, ANSON CHAN, and
AURELIO “RAY” CISNEROS

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15

In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
LITIGATION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] RE EXTENSION
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW

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

Case No.: 5:11-cv-05235-RMW
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

STIPULATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties respectfully request a one-week

3

extension for defendants to file any reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the

4

Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, noticing
October 26, 2012 as the hearing date (Dkt No. 121);
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2012, plaintiffs opposed defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Dkt No. 128);
WHEREAS, defendants’ reply is currently due September 24, 2012 pursuant to the
Stipulation and Order Regarding Scheduling Matters (Dkt No. 118);
WHEREAS, defendants’ counsel has requested a one-week extension due to family- and
illness-related absences, and plaintiffs have agreed to the extension; and
WHEREAS, the requested time modification would have no effect on the noticed hearing
date or others scheduling in this action.

15

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court,

16

that defendants shall have until October 1, 2012 to file any reply in support of their motion to

17

dismiss the Complaint.

18
19

Dated: September 18, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

20
21
22
23

By: /s/ Angie Young Kim
Angie Young Kim

24
25

Attorneys for Defendants
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Shaw Hong, Anson
Chan, and Aurelio “Ray” Cisneros

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] RE EXTENSION
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW

-1-

1

Dated: September 18, 2012

2
3
4

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Stephen R. Basser
Samuel M. Ward
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
By: /s/ Sam M. Ward
Samuel M. Ward

6
7

BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
J. Gerard Stranch, IV
James G. Stranch, III
227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
Nashville, TN 37201-1631
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10
11

Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
Oakland County Employees’ Retirement System,
Laborers’ District Council Contractors’ Pension Fund
of Ohio, and Woburn Retirement System, and the
Proposed Class

12
13
14
15

[] ORDER
16
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that defendants shall have
17
until October 1, 2012 to file any reply in support of their motion to dismiss the Complaint.
18
19
20

DATED:
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] RE EXTENSION
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW

-2-