Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 30, 2013

SCOTT BRUCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Stephen D. Hibbard, (SBN 177865) San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Zhengrong Shi and David King.

SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Jerome S. Fortinsky (admitted pro hac vice) H. Miriam Farber, (admitted pro hac vice) New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Zhengrong Shi and David King.

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers (admitted pro hac vice), Joshua M. Kolsky, Elizabeth Aniskevich, Washington, D.C., POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom (admitted pro hac vice) Joshua B. Silverman (admitted pro hac vice) Louis C. Ludwig (admitted pro hac vice) Chicago, Illinois, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng.

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP Michael M. Goldberg, Lionel Z. Glancy, Los Angeles, California, Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le and Chen Weifeng

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 16-2 and 7-12, lead plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le, and Chen Weifeng (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs") and defendants Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. ("Suntech"), Zhengrong Shi and David King (collectively, the "Defendants, " and together with the Lead Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel, hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists to request an order from the Court rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference currently set for September 19, 2013 (pursuant to the Clerk's Notice dated January 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 55)), and adjusting accordingly the related deadlines set forth in this Court's August 1, 2012 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 5) (the "August 1, 2012 Order").

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, the initial putative class action complaint in this consolidated action was filed against Defendants Suntech, Zhengrong Shi, David King, and Amy Yi Zhang, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the August 1, 2012 Order, the Initial Case Management Conference was set for November 1, 2012;

WHEREAS, pursuant to a Stipulation and Order dated October 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 33), the Initial Case Management Conference was continued to February 14, 2013;

WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in this action;

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012, the Court consolidated this action with other related actions for pre-trial purposes;

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and Suntech filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order seeking adjournment of the February 14, 2013 date for the Initial Case Management Conference;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Clerk's Notice dated January 24, 2013, the Initial Case Management Conference was continued to September 19, 2013;

WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was filed on February 5, 2013;

WHEREAS Suntech filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 8, 2013 and defendants Shi and King filed motions to dismiss on June 28, 2013;

WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss on August 5, 2013;

WHEREAS the Defendants' replies in further support of their motions to dismiss are due to be filed on September 18, 2013;

WHEREAS oral argument on the Defendants' motions to dismiss is set for October 3, 2013;

WHEREAS the Parties believe that, in order to avoid the needless waste of the Court's and the Parties' resources, it would be prudent to defer the initial case management conference and the completion of initial disclosures until after completion of briefing, oral argument and the Court's decision on the Defendants' pending motions to dismiss; and

WHEREAS the Parties further believe that postponement of initial disclosures and any discussions about discovery at this time is proper because the PSLRA generally stays all discovery and other proceedings, including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions to dismiss in securities actions such as this one. See Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 328-29 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding F.R.C.P. 26(a)'s initial disclosure requirements are disclosures or other proceedings for purposes of PSLRA's stay provision, and must be stayed pending disposition of motion to dismiss).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, subject to Court approval, as follows:

1. The Initial Case Management Conference is continued until December 12, 2013, or such other date as may be ordered by the Court.

2. This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim relief.

3. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of the Defendants' rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that any of the Defendants would otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

4. The Lead Plaintiffs and Suntech have sought two other continuations of the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines.

5. The Parties do not seek to reset these dates for the purpose of delay, and the proposed new dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates because the Court has yet to schedule these dates.

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court issue an order granting the Parties' request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines as set forth in the following [Proposed] Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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