Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joseph Stopa, Derivatively On Behalf of Nominal Defendant, Equinix, Inc v. Steven Clontz

March 2, 2012

JOSEPH STOPA, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT, EQUINIX, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEVEN CLONTZ, GARY HROMADKO,
SCOTT KRIENS, WILLIAM LUBY, IRVING LYONS, III, CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, STEPHEN SMITH, PETER VAN CAMP,
DEFENDANTS. EQUINIX, INC.,
NOMINAL DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Samuel Conti Judge

KEVIN P. MUCK (CSB No. 120918) kmuck@fenwick.com 2 CATHERINE KEVANE (CSB No. 215501) ckevane@fenwick.com 3 MARIE C. BAFUS (CSB No. 258417) mbafus@fenwick.com 4 FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 6 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 7 Attorneys for Defendants Steven Clontz, Gary Hromadko, Scott Kriens, William Luby, Irving Lyons, III, Christopher Paisley, Stephen Smith, Peter Van Camp and 9 nominal defendant Equinix, Inc. 10

Derivative Action STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESETTING CERTAIN ADR DEADLINES

This stipulation is entered into by and among plaintiff Joseph Stopa ("Plaintiff") and 2 defendants Steven Clontz, Gary Hromadko, Scott Kriens, William Luby, Irving Lyons, III, 3 Christopher Paisley, Stephen Smith, Peter Van Camp and nominal defendant Equinix, Inc. 4 (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their respective attorneys of record; 5

WHEREAS, presently pending before this Court is Plaintiff's putative shareholder 6 derivative action against certain officers and directors of Equinix, Inc. ("Equinix" or the 7 "Company") and against nominal defendant Equinix; 8

WHEREAS, this action has been deemed related to a putative shareholder class action 9 complaint, entitled Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., Case 10 No. 11-CV-01016-SC (N.D. Cal.) ("Cement Masons"), which is currently pending in this Court 11 against Equinix and certain officers and directors under the Private Securities Litigation Reform 12 Act ("PSLRA"); 13

WHEREAS, plaintiff in the Cement Masons case filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws ("Amended Class Action Complaint") on September 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Cement Masons' Amended Class Action Complaint on November 7, 2011, and that motion has been fully briefed and taken under 17 submission by the Court; 18

WHEREAS, the operative complaint in this action is an Amended Complaint filed on December 14, 2011; 20

WHEREAS, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court has entered orders on July 14, 2011 and October 18, 2011 temporarily staying proceedings in this action pending a ruling on the 22 motion to dismiss in Cement Masons; 23

WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court's orders, Defendants have no obligation to move, 24 plead or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint until after this Court rules on 25 defendants' motion to dismiss the Cement Masons Amended Class Action Complaint; 26

WHEREAS, because the Court has not yet issued an order on defendants' motion to 27 dismiss the Cement Masons' Amended Class Action Complaint, this case currently remains 28 stayed and Defendants have not yet responded to the Amended Complaint herein;

WHEREAS, a case management conference is currently set for March 16, 2012;

WHEREAS, in light of the status of this action, the parties believe that a case management 3 conference at this point would serve no purpose and would result in the needless expenditure of 4 private and judicial resources, and that the initial case management conference in this action 5 should be continued and have conferred with the Court and have been informed that May 25, 6 2012 at 10:00 a.m. is a convenient date for the case management conference; 7

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2011, the Court in the above-captioned action issued an Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, requiring that the parties meet 9 and confer regarding ADR process selection, file ADR Certifications and either stipulate to an 10 ADR Process or file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference by August 9, 2011 (the "ADR 11 deadlines"); 12

WHEREAS, in light of the stay, the parties also believe that the ADR deadlines should also be continued to thirty (30) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.