Carpenter's Pension Fund of West Virginia v. Hong et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER 24 Temporarily Deferring Prosecution of Derivative Action. Case is Stayed. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 12/4/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DOUGLAS J. CLARK, State Bar No. 171499 Email: dclark@wsgr.com CYNTHIA A. DY, State Bar No. 172761 Email: cdy@wsgr.com THOMAS J. MARTIN, State Bar No. 150039 Email: tmartin@wsgr.com ANGIE YOUNG KIM, State Bar No. 270503 Email: aykim@wsgr.com WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 8 9 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants SHAW HONG, DWIGHT STEFFENSEN, JOSEPH JENG, HENRY YANG, WILLIAM HSU and Nominal Defendant OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CARPENTERS PENSION FUND OF WEST VIRGINIA, Derivatively on Behalf of OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SHAW HONG, DWIGHT STEFFENSEN, ) JOSEPH JENG, HENRY YANG and WILLIAM ) HSU, ) ) Defendants. ) ) -and) ) OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, ) ) Nominal Party. ) ) ) 27 28 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE STAY CASE NO. 5:12-cv-01423-RMW Case No.: 5:12-cv-01423 RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER TEMPORARILY DEFERRING PROSECUTION OF DERIVATIVE ACTION 1 STIPULATION 2 WHEREAS, on August 31, 2012, nominal defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. 3 (“OmniVision”) filed a motion to stay proceedings [Dkt. No. 17] which has been noticed for 4 hearing on January 18, 2013, along with the motions to dismiss filed by OmniVision and the 5 individual defendants [Dkt. Nos. 19, 20]; and 6 WHEREAS, the parties in similar derivative actions pending in the Delaware Court of 7 Chancery (Pope v. Hong, Civ. A. No. 7514-VCN), and in California Superior Court, Santa Clara 8 County (In re OmniVision Technologies Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-12-CV-216875) 9 (the “State Court Derivative Case”), now have agreed to stay proceedings in those actions 10 pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in this Court in the action captioned In re 11 OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-5235-RMW (N.D. Cal.) (the 12 “Securities Case”); 13 WHEREAS, plaintiff in the present action has agreed to coordinate future litigation 14 efforts, including discovery, if any, with the lead plaintiff in the State Court Derivative Case to 15 avoid any duplicative work derivatively on behalf of OmniVision; 16 WHEREAS, in the event that any discovery is provided or produced to plaintiffs in the 17 OmniVision Securities Case, by way of Court order or otherwise, defendants have agreed to 18 provide copies of that discovery to lead plaintiff in the State Court Derivative Case (subject to 19 any appropriate agreement or order governing confidentiality). 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that: 22 1. All proceedings in this action shall be stayed pending a ruling (“Ruling”) from 23 this Court on the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated action In re OmniVision 24 Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-5235-RMW. 25 2. The January 18, 2013 hearing on defendants’ motions shall be vacated. 26 3. Within twenty (20) days following the Ruling, the parties to the above-captioned 27 action shall meet and confer regarding further proceedings and submit a joint status report to the 28 Court. STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE STAY CASE NO. 5:12-cv-01423-RMW -1- 1 4. At any time during which the prosecution of this case is deferred pursuant to the 2 Order, a party may file a motion with the Court seeking to modify the terms of the Order, which 3 may be opposed by any other party. 4 5 Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 25, 2012 6 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 7 8 9 By: /s/ Cynthia A. Dy Cynthia A. Dy 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 Dated: October 25, 2012 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Aelish M. Baig Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 -andBenny C. Goodman III Erik W. Luedeke 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 By: /s/ Benny C. Goodman III Benny C. Goodman III 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND] ORDER RE STAY CASE NO. 5:12-cv-01423-RMW -2- 1 [] ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 3 1. All proceedings in this action shall be stayed pending a ruling (“Ruling”) from 4 this Court on the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated action In re OmniVision 5 Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-5235-RMW. 6 2. The January 18, 2013 hearing on defendants’ motions shall be vacated. 7 3. Within twenty (20) days following the Ruling, the parties to the above-captioned 8 action shall meet and confer regarding further proceedings and submit a joint status report to the 9 Court. 10 4. At any time during which the prosecution of this case is deferred pursuant to the 11 Order, a party may file a motion with the Court seeking to modify the terms of the Order, which 12 may be opposed by any other party. 13 14 Dated: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND W -3- 1 I, Angie Young Kim, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used 2 to file the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Stay of Proceedings. In compliance 3 with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that the signatories for the parties have concurred in 4 this filing. 5 6 Dated: October 25, 2012 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE STAY CASE NO. 5:12-cv-01423-RMW /s/ Angie Young Kim Angie Young Kim

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?