From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 22, 2014
3:12-cv-04061-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014)

Opinion

          Stephen D. Hibbard SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP San Francisco, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Jerome S. Fortinsky (admitted pro hac vice) H. Miriam Farber (admitted pro hac vice) New York, NY, 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 ANSWER THE CONSOLIDATED SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

          RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, lead plaintiffs James Bachesta, Thanh Le, and Chen Weifeng (collectively, the "Lead Plaintiffs") and defendant Zhengrong Shi (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 extending Dr. Shi's time to answer the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "SAC") from the current deadline of September 2, 2014.

         WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. No. 119) denying Dr. Shi's Motion to Dismiss the SAC and ordering Dr. Shi to "file an answer to the SAC within twenty days";

         WHEREAS, because the twenty-day period ends on Labor Day, Dr. Shi must file an answer to the SAC on or before September 2, 2014;

         WHEREAS counsel for Dr. Shi require more time to consult with Dr. Shi and prepare the answer than the current schedule allows;

         WHEREAS counsel for Dr. Shi have previously scheduled family vacations that limit their ability to prepare the answer under the current schedule; and

         WHEREAS the proposed deadline of September 30, 2014 would ensure that the answer is filed before the Case Management Conference that the Court has scheduled for October 2, 2014.

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

         1. Dr. Shi's time to answer the SAC is hereby extended to September 30, 2014.

         2. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Dr. Shi's rights in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that he would otherwise have.

         3. There have been no previous modifications to the schedule that the Court set in its August 12, 2014 Order for Dr. Shi to answer the SAC.

         4. The Parties do not seek to extend Dr. Shi's time to answer the SAC for the purpose of delay, and the proposed new date will not have an effect on any pre-trial or trial dates because the Court has yet to schedule these dates.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 22, 2014
3:12-cv-04061-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014)
Case details for

Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co.

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT BRUCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Aug 22, 2014

Citations

3:12-cv-04061-RS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014)