Mary Jane Jasin et al v. Vivus, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER APPROVING 33 STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Defendants' response to Second Amended Complaint due 10/2/2015. Should Defendants file a motion to dismiss, they must reserve a hearing date pursuant to the procedures in the Court's standing order. Any response on such motion is due 11/20/15 and any reply is due 12/15/2015. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 8/25/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015)

1
2
3
4

Norman J. Blears (SBN 95600)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]

7

Robin E. Wechkin (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, Washington
Telephone: [phone]

8

Counsel for Defendants

5
6

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14

MARY JANE JASIN and THOMAS JASIN,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
vs.
VIVUS, INC., LELAND F. WILSON,
TIMOTHY MORRIS, and PETER Y. TAM
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:14-CV-03263 BLF
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TO
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

STIPULATION

1
2
3

WHEREAS:
1.

On June 18, 2015, this Court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

4

plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint

5

by August 14, 2015. (Docket No. 30)

6

2.

7

(Docket No. 32)

8

3.

9
10

Plaintiffs accordingly filed their second amended complaint on August 14, 2015.

Defendants expect that they will respond to the second amended complaint by again

moving to dismiss.
4.

The briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss may be complex. The parties wish to

11

ensure that they have sufficient time to brief the issues in a way that will provide optimal assistance

12

to the Court.

13
14

THE PARTIES THEREFORE STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
Defendants’ response to the second amended complaint should be filed on or before

15

1.

16

October 2, 2015.

17

2.

In the event that defendants’ response is a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs’ opposition to

18

that motion should be filed on or before November 20, 2015, and defendants’ reply in support of the

19

motion should be filed on or before December 15, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

1
2

3.

A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint should be

scheduled at the Court’s direction, and on a date of the Court’s choosing after January 1, 2016.

3
4

Dated: August 24, 2015

By: s/ Norman J. Blears

5

Norman J. Blears
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

6

Counsel for Defendants

7
8
9

Dated: August 24, 2015

By: s/ Rosemary M. Rivas

10

Rosemary M. Rivas
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]

11
12
13

L. Kendall Satterfield
Michael G. McClellan
Rosalee B.C. Thomas
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
1077 30th St NW, Suite 150
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: [phone]

14
15
16
17

Counsel for Plaintiffs

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation above, the Court orders as follows:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1.

Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is due October 2,

2.

In the event defendants respond to the second amended complaint moving to dismiss,

2015.

plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion is due November 20, 2015 and defendants’ reply is due
December 15, 2015.
3.

Defendants shall reserve a hearing date on any motion to dismiss pursuant to the

procedures set forth in the Court’s standing order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: August 25, 2015

HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263