Young v. Pacific Biosciences of California Inc et al

Filing 40

STIPULATION AND ORDER Deferring Compliance with ADR Multi-Option Program Pending Decision on Motion to Remand re Stipulation(39 in 5:11-cv-05668-EJD), (32 in 5:11-cv-05669-EJD). Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/23/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2012)

1 SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
MARY K. BLASY (211262)
2 707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
3 Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
– and –
5 DAVID R. SCOTT
156 South Main Street
6 P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
7 Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
8 Facsimile: [phone]
9
Counsel for Plaintiffs
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13

GREG YOUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All
14 Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 11-cv-05668-EJD

15

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH
ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM PENDING
DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

16

Plaintiff,
vs.

17 PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
20 MATTHEW SANDNAS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
21
Plaintiff,
22
vs.
23
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA,
24 INC., et al.,
25

Case No. 11-cv-05669-EJD
Hon. Edward J. Davila

Defendants.

26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

1

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2011, plaintiff Greg Young filed his Complaint for Violations of the

2 Securities Act of 1933 and Jury Demand against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (“PacBio” or the
3 “Company”), several of PacBio’s senior executives and directors (Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian
4 B. Dow, Brook Byers, William W. Ericson, Michael Hunkapiller, Randall S. Livingston, Susan Siegel, and
5 David B. Singer, collectively with PacBio, the “Issuer Defendants”) and the underwriters that conducted
6 PacBio’s October 26, 2010 initial public stock offering (J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co.
7 LLC (formerly Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Piper Jaffray &
8 Co.) (the “Underwriter Defendants,” collectively with the Issuer Defendants, “Defendants”) in the Superior
9 Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV-509210 (the “Young Action”);
10

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2011, plaintiff Matthew Sandnas filed his Complaint for Violations of

11 the Securities Act of 1933 and Jury Demand against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County
12 of San Mateo, Case No. CIV-509259 (the “Sandnas Action”);
13

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2011, Defendants removed both the Young and Sandnas Actions to

14 federal court;
15

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to remand the Young and Sandnas Actions

16 back to state court;
17

WHEREAS, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, all Defendants not previously served in the Young

18 and Sandnas Actions accepted service of process and the parties agreed to a uniform response date upon
19 resolution of the Plaintiffs’ motions to remand;
20

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2012 the Court took Plaintiffs’ fully briefed motions to remand under

21 submission;
22

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s November 23, 2011 ADR Scheduling Order in the Young

23 Action, the parties’ deadlines to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process
24 selection, and discovery plan, to file ADR Certification signed by Parties and Counsel and to file either a
25 Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is February 24, 2012; and
26
27
28

-1Nos. 11-cv-05668-EJD/11-cv-05669-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

1

WHEREAS, the Court’s resolution of the pending motions to remand could impact the parties’

2 positions concerning ADR;
3

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through

4 their respective counsel listed below, that compliance with the February 24, 2012 ADR deadlines be
5 deferred pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ motions to remand, with all responses to the ADR Order being due
6 within two weeks of resolution of the pending remand motions if the Court denies the remand motions and
7 retains jurisdiction of these actions.
8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

9 DATED: February 22, 2012
10

SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
MARY K. BLASY

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

/s/ Mary K. Blasy
MARY K. BLASY
707 Broadway, Tenth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
619/233-0508 (fax)
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
DAVID R. SCOTT
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: [phone]
860/537-4432 (fax)

22

Amber L. Eck
ZELDES & HAEGGQUIST, LLP
625 Broadway, Suite 906
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
619/342-7878 (fax)

23

Counsel for Plaintiffs

20
21

24
25
26
27
28

-2Nos. 11-cv-05668-EJD/11-cv-05669-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

1 DATED: February 22, 2012

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
NINA (NICKI) LOCKER

2
3

/s/ Nina Locker
NINA (NICKI) LOCKER
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4
5
6
7

Counsel for Defendants Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc., Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes,
Brian B. Dow, Brook Byers, William W. Ericson,
Michael Hunkapiller, Randall S. Livingston, Susan
Siegel and David B. Singer

8
9
10
11 DATED: February 22, 2012

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
SIMONA G. STRAUSS

12
13
/s/ Simona G. Strauss
SIMONA G. STRAUSS

14
15

2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

16
17
18

Counsel for Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (formerly Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated), Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., and Piper Jaffray & Co.

19
20
21

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

February 23, 2012
DATED: _______________
HON. EDWARD J. DAVILA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

-3Nos. 11-cv-05668-EJD/11-cv-05669-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 22, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and

3 served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all
4 parties of operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic
5 filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s
6 CM/ECF System.
7
8
9
10

/s/ Mary K. Blasy
Mary K. Blasy
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Nos. 11-cv-05668-EJD/11-cv-05669-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND

1
2

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45
I, Mary K. Blasy, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from

3 signatories Nina Locker and Simona G. Strauss. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
4 United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of February, 2012 at
5 San Diego, California.
6
7
8
9

/s/ Mary K. Blasy
Mary K. Blasy
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

10
Counsel for Plaintiffs
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5Nos. 11-cv-05668-EJD/11-cv-05669-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFERRING COMPLIANCE WITH ADR MULTIOPTION PROGRAM PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO REMAND