Opinion
JOHN C. DWYER, SHANNON M. EAGAN, ADAM C. TRIGG, COOLEY LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., L. DANIEL BROWNE, LAUREN P. SILVERNAIL, JACOB WAUGH, ROBERT BYRNES, RONALD EASTMAN, PHYLLIS GARDNER, JAMES GLASHEEN, JONATHAN TUNNICLIFFE, and RONALD WOOTEN.
Joshua D.N. Hess, DECHERT LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC.
JAMES I. JACONETTE, ROBBINS GELLAR RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Diego, CA, and SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, Post Montgomery Center, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION TO REMAND
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
Pursuant to United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules ("L.R") 6-2 and 7-12, Defendants Revance Therapeutics, Inc., L. Daniel Browne, Lauren P. Silvernail, Jacob Waugh, Robert Byrnes, Ronald W. Eastman, Phyllis Gardner, James Glasheen, Jonathan Tunnicliffe, Ronald Wooten, Cowen and Company LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., BMO Capital Markets, Corp., and William Blair & Company, LLC ("Defendants") and Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, ("Plaintiff") (collectively, "the Parties"), hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists to request an order from this Court (i) extending Defendants' time to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand, and (ii) extending Plaintiff's time to file its reply to Defendants' opposition to the motion to remand.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a putative class action, " City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. et. al., " Case No. CIV 533635 against Defendants in San Mateo Superior Court alleging violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the "Complaint");
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2015, Defendants removed the action to federal court (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2015, the action was assigned to the Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (Dkt. 3);
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2015, this Court issued an Order setting an Initial Case Management Conference for September 8, 2015, at 2:00 PM (Dkt. 4);
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the parties stipulated under Civil L.R. 6-1(a) that, in light of the anticipated remand motion and opposition, and in the interests of judicial economy and preservation of the Court's and the parties' resources, Defendants need not respond to the pending Complaint, but would respond within 30 days of Plaintiff amending the Complaint or designating an operative complaint (Dkt. 7);
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, indicating August 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM as the date and time for hearing on the motion. (Dkt. 8);
WHEREAS, Defendants intend to oppose the remand motion;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3 Defendants' opposition to the motion to remand must be filed not more than 14 days after the motion to remand was filed, and Plaintiff's reply must be filed not more than 7 days after the opposition was due;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties may file a stipulation, conforming to Civil L.R. 7-12, requesting an order changing time that would affect the date of an event or deadline already fixed by Court order, or that would accelerate or extend time frames set in the Local Rules or in the Federal Rules;
WHEREAS, to accommodate scheduling conflicts and Counsel's travel commitments, Defendants require a brief extension of time to respond to the motion to remand.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:
1. Defendants' opposition to the motion to remand shall be filed on or before July 2, 2015.
2. Plaintiff's reply to the opposition to the motion to remand shall be filed on or before July 14, 2015.
3. The hearing on the remand motion will occur as currently scheduled on August 6, 2015, at 2:00 PM.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.