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.

Arostegui v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 22, 2013

TODD AROSTEGUI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, DINO DINA and J. TYLER MARTIN, Defendants. JOHN WEBB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, DINO DINA and J. TYLER MARTIN, Defendants.

COOLEY LLP, JOHN C. DWYER (136533), JEFFREY M. KABAN (235743), Palo Alto, CA,

COOLEY LLP, RYAN E. BLAIR (246724), San Diego, CA, COOLEY LLP, KATHLYN A. QUERUBIN (275085), San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina and J. Tyler Martin.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Shawn A. Williams, San Francisco, CA, Darren J. Robbins, David C. Walton, Catherine J. Kowalewski, San Diego, CA, Counsel for Plaintiff Todd Arostegui,

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Casey E. Sadler, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg, Robert V. Prongay, Casey E. Sadler, Los Angeles, CA, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH, Howard G. Smith, Bensalem, PA, Counsel for Plaintiff John Webb,

COOLEY LLP, Jeffrey M. Kaban, John C. Dwyer, Jeffrey M. Kaban, Palo Alto, CA COOLEY LLP, Ryan E. Blair, San Diego, CA, COOLEY LLP, Kathlyn A. Querubin, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendants, Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina and J. Tyler Martin.

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2013, Plaintiff Todd Arostegui filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the above-captioned action against defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina and J. Tyler Martin, for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, a similar putative class action complaint was filed in this Court asserting the same or substantially similar claims against defendants, captioned Webb v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No CV-13-2947-EJD (the "Webb Action");

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the instant action and the Webb Action (collectively, the "Dynavax Actions") are substantially identical because each alleges claims for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, and are based upon similar factual allegations against similar defendants, and accordingly the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Relate Cases ( see Dkt. Entry Nos. 7-8);

WHEREAS, the Court granted the parties' Administrative Motion to Relate the Webb Action to the instant action on August 15, 2013 (Dkt. No. 10);

WHEREAS, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B) the Court must appoint a lead plaintiff;

WHEREAS, the time period in which class members may move to be appointed lead plaintiff herein under 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(A) and (B) expires on August 19, 2013;

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint superseding previously filed complaints, including the complaints filed in the Dynavax Actions;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that judicial efficiency dictates that responding to any complaint should be deferred until after the appointment of lead plaintiff and ...


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.