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)
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?