NEAS LIMITED v. OJSC RUSNANO et al

Filing 28

CORRECTED STIPULATION AND ORDER 26 Waiving Service, Extending Time to Respond to Complaint, and Scheduling Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 9/9/15. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

KAREN JOHNSON-McKEWAN (SBN 121570)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2669
Telephone:
1-415-773-5700
Facsimile:
1-415-773-5759
ROBERT L. SILLS
[e-mail]
PHILIPP SMAYLOVSKY
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 W 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019-6142
Telephone:
1-212-506-5000
Facsimile:
1-212-506-5151
Attorneys for DEFENDANTS OJSC RUSNANO; RUSNANO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; RUSNANO CAPITAL,
A.G.; RUSNANO CAPITAL, LLC; FONDS RUSNANO
CAPITAL, A.G.; ANATOLY CHUBAIS; OLEG KISELEV;
IRINA RAPOPORT; SERGEY POLIKARPOV; AND
VALERY ROSTOKIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17
18

NEAS LIMITED, individually in its own right
and derivatively on behalf of NITOL SOLAR
LIMITED; and ANDREY TRETYAKOV,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs,
v.
OJSC RUSNANO; RUSNANO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC;
RUSNANO CAPITAL, A.G.; RUSNANO
CAPITAL, LLC; RUSNANO USA, INC.;
FONDS RUSNANO CAPITAL, A.G.;
ANATOLY CHUBAIS; OLEG KISELEV;
IRINA RAPPAPORT; SERGEY
POLIKARPOV; VALERY ROSTOKIN;
SHERIGO RESOURCES LIMITED; and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Case No. 15-cv-01612-RMW
CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION
WAIVING SERVICE, EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT, AND SCHEDULING
MOTION TO DISMISS
(] ORDER FILED
CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH)
Date Action Filed: April 8, 2015

Defendants.

27
28

CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Neas Limited, individually in its own right and derivatively

2

on behalf of Nitol Solar Limited, and Andrey Tretyakov commenced this action by filing a

3

complaint (the “Complaint”) on April 8, 2015;

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have served Defendant Rusnano USA, Inc. (“Rusnano

5

USA”), a Delaware corporation with an office in this District, and Rusnano USA has appeared in

6

this action;

7

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have named as defendants a number of individual and

8

corporate defendants who reside, are incorporated, or maintain their principal offices outside the

9

United States, including Defendants OJSC Rusnano; Rusnano Management Company, LLC;

10

Rusnano Capital, A.G.; Rusnano Capital, LLC; Fonds Rusnano Capital, A.G.; Anatoly Chubais;

11

Oleg Kiselev; Irina Rapoport; Sergey Polikarpov; and Valery Rostokin (collectively, the “Foreign

12

Defendants”);

13
14

WHEREAS, due to difficulties and expenses associated with serving the Foreign
Defendants Plaintiffs have not yet undertaken service;

15

WHEREAS, for the sake of efficiency and to ease the burden on the parties and

16

the Court, the parties wish to come to an agreement on the issue of service and coordinate the

17

contemplated motions of Rusnano USA and the Foreign Defendants (collectively the “Moving

18

Defendants”) to dismiss the Complaint;

19
20

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1 as
follows:

21

1.

The Foreign Defendants hereby waive service of the Complaint, and appear by

22

their undersigned counsel, conditioned on the entry of this stipulation and proposed order by the

23

Court;

24
25
26

2.

The time to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Complaint for the Moving

Defendants is extended to and including September 11, 2015;
3.

If the Moving Defendants, or any of them, move to dismiss or stay the Complaint

27

herein, then Plaintiffs shall serve their responsive papers on such motion on or before

28

November 6, 2015, and the Moving Defendants shall serve their reply papers on or before

CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

1

December 4, 2015. No surreply papers shall be filed on any such motion, except by leave of

2

Court granted on motion for good cause shown, on such terms and conditions as the Court deems

3

appropriate. The parties agree that (a) any such surreply papers shall be strictly limited to issues

4

newly raised in the moving parties’ reply papers, and (b) subject to the approval of the Court, the

5

moving parties may file papers responding to any such surreply.

6

4.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall preclude Plaintiffs from

7

seeking discovery addressed solely and specifically to issues of jurisdiction or venue raised in the

8

Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss or stay either (a) as expressly granted, if at all, by the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court or (b) by leave of Court

10

granted on motion. For the avoidance of doubt, the Moving Defendants do not agree that any

11

such discovery is necessary or appropriate, and reserve their right to object to any such discovery

12

or to any motion seeking leave to take such discovery.

13
14

5.

hearing and resolution of the Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss;

15
16

Other than as set forth in paragraph 4 hereof, all discovery is stayed pending the

6.

This stipulation is entered into solely by and between Plaintiff and the Moving

Defendants and in no way affects or limits the rights of any other party.

17

7.

Other than the defenses of insufficient process and insufficient service of process,

18

this stipulation is without prejudice to all claims, rights and defenses of each of the Moving

19

Defendants, each of which acknowledged by Plaintiffs to be expressly reserved.

20

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-2CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

1

DATED: September 2, 2015

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP

2
By: /s/ Karen Johnson-McKewan
Karen Johnson-McKewan
Robert L Sills
Philipp Smaylovsky
Attorneys for OJSC Rusnano; Rusnano
Management Company, LLC; Rusnano Capital,
A.G.; Rusnano Capital, LLC; Fonds Rusnano
Capital, A.G.; Anatoly Chubais; Oleg Kiselev;
Irina Rappaport; Sergey Polikarpov; and Valery
Rostokin

3
4
5
6
7
8

DATED: September 2, 2015

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC

9
By: /s/ Steven Mark Schatz
Steven Mark Schatz
Rodney Grant Strickland , Jr.
Naira Arax Der Kiureghian
Attorneys for Defendant Rusnano USA, Inc.

10
11
12
13

DATED: September 2, 2015

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

14
15

By: /s/ Ely Goldin
Ely Goldin
W. Christain Moffitt
Michael A. Sweet
Jack Praetzellis
Attorneys for Plaintiffs NEAS Limited,
individually and in its own right and derivatively
on behalf of Nitol Solar Limited, and Andrey
Tretyakov

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

I hereby attest that I have on file all holographic signatures corresponding to any
signatures indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
DATED: September 2, 2015

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP

24
25

By: /s/ Karen Johnson-McKewan
Karen Johnson-McKewan

26
27
28
-3CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

1

PURSUANT TO THE FORGONE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,

2
3

Dated: September , 2015

4
5

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:763038338

-4CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT