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.

Browning v. Amyris, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 6, 2013

DAVID BROWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
AMYRIS, INC. and JOHN G. MELO, Defendants.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP, SUSAN J. HARRIMAN - # 111703, MICHAEL D. CELIO - # 197998, LAURIE CARR MIMS - # 241584, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendants AMYRIS, INC. and JOHN G. MELO.

MILBERG LLP, DAVID AZAR, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff David Browning and Lead Counsel for Class.

BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, EVAN J. SMITH, Beverly Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Tsao and Lead Counsel for Class.

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2013, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order dated September 5, 2013 (Doc. No. 25) (hereinafter "Stipulation and Order of September 5"), Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint in the above-captioned securities class action;

WHEREAS, Defendants Amyris, Inc. and John Melo intend to file a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint;

WHEREAS, consistent with the Stipulation and Order of September 5, the parties have met and conferred regarding a proposed briefing schedule and proposed hearing date for Defendants' motion to dismiss that provides each party with approximately equal extensions for their initial briefs after factoring in the holidays;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, discovery in this action is stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss ( see 15 U.S.C. ยง 78u-4(b)(3)(B));

WHEREAS, the parties have also met and conferred regarding the timing of the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for November 19 and certain other deadlines (such as submitting the form for the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program), and believe that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency would be best met by continuing that conference and related deadlines until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss;

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between undersigned counsel and subject to approval of the Court that:

1. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on or before December 11, 2013;

2. Lead Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on or before February 7, 2014;

4. The parties request that the Court hold a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. or such later date at the Court's convenience, however, should Lead Plaintiffs file their opposition before the February 7 deadline, the parties shall advise the Court ...


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.