United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
SCOTT BRUCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD. and ZHENGRONG SHI, Defendants.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Jerome S. Fortinsky (admitted pro hac vice), H. Miriam Farber (admitted pro hac vice), New York, NY. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Stephen D. Hibbard, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Zhengrong Shi.
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 EXTEND DEFENDANT ZHENGRONG SHI'S TIME TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND FURTHER CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESET RELATED DEADLINES
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on December 26, 2013, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and granting lead plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le, and Chen Weifeng (the "Lead Plaintiffs") leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days (Dkt. No. 98);
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. No. 99) (the "SAC") against Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. and Zhengrong Shi ("Shi");
WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(d) and 15(a)(3), Shi must answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the SAC on or before February 13, 2014;
WHEREAS the Lead Plaintiffs and Shi (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel, have agreed to extend Shi's time to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the SAC and have further agreed on a schedule for briefing any such motion to dismiss;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference in the above-captioned action to March 20, 2014 (Dkt. No. 96);
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 Shi has had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss and the Court has ruled on any such motion 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 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (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 Parties, through their undersigned counsel, subject to Court approval, as follows:
1. Defendant Shi's time to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the SAC shall be extended through and including March 28, 2014.
2. The Lead Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to any motion to dismiss by Shi ...