THOMAS J. PRIMO and EVAN POWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., HUGH C. MARTIN, SUSAN K. BARNES, BRIAN B. DOW, WILLIAM ERICSON, BROOK BYERS, MICHAEL HUNKAPILLER, RANDALL LIVINGSTON, SUSAN SIEGEL, DAVID SINGER, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., and PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., Defendants.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C., ROBERT S. GREEN, Larkspur, CA, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
NINA LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838, CATHERINE E. MORENO, State Bar No. 264517, BENJAMIN M. CROSSON, State Bar No. 247560 CRYSTAL M. GAUDETTE, State Bar No. 247712 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Professional Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian B. Dow, William Ericson, Brook Byers, Michael Hunkapiller, Randal Livingston, Susan Siegel, and David Singer.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, SIMONA G. STRAUSS, SIMONA G. STRAUSS, Palo Alto, California, Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2012, Plaintiffs Thomas Primo and Evan Powell filed an Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") in the instant action, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PacBio"), a number of PacBio's senior executives and directors (Hugh C. Martin, Susan K. Barnes, Brian B. Dow, William Ericson, Brook Byers, Michael Hunkapiller, Randall Livingston, Susan Siegel, and David Singer (together with PacBio, the "PacBio Defendants")), and the underwriters in PacBio's initial public offering (J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (formerly Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and Piper Jaffray & Co. (the "Underwriter Defendants")) (collectively, "Defendants");
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2013, this Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint without prejudice; and granting Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 14, 2013 (the "Dismissal Order") (Dkt. No. 72);
WHEREAS, Defendants are herewith filing a Motion to Stay this action in light of a June 3, 2013 order by the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County (the "State Court"), preliminarily approving a settlement that Defendants believe disposes of all the claims brought in the instant action (the "Preliminarily Approved Settlement");
WHEREAS, Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint would otherwise be due on July 14, 2013;
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it would be inefficient to require Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint until such time as this Court has ruled on the Motion to Stay.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs do not believe a stay of this action is appropriate, nor that the State Court has authority to settle the claims asserted in this action, but nonetheless, in the interests of conservation of the resources of the Court and as a courtesy to Defendants, agree to the terms of this proposed stipulation, subject to its approval by the Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree, by and through their respective counsel, as follows:
1. Plaintiffs will file their Second Amended Complaint on June 14, 2013 (in accordance with the terms of the Dismissal Order);
2. Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the Motion to Stay shall be due on July 18, 2013;
3. Defendants' reply brief(s) in support of the Motion to Stay shall be ...