Opinion
2:22-cv-01915-GMN-DJA
07-10-2023
MARILYN EZZES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VINTAGE WINE ESTATES, INC., PATRICK RONEY, KATHERINE DEVILLERS, and KRISTINA JOHNSTON, Defendants
ANDREW R. MUEHLBAUER, ESQ. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP CASEY E. SADLER CHARLES H. LINEHAN (PRO HAC VICE) LEAD COUNSEL FOR LEAD PLAINTIFFS MARILYN EZZES AND JEFFREY A. DAVIES BLOCK & LEVITON LLP JEFFREY C. BLOCK (PRO HAC VICE) COUNSEL FOR ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF MICHAEL F. SALBENBLATT Michael Gayan, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 11135) Katrina Stark, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 16006) KEMP JONES, LLP John C. Tang (pro hac vice) Dennis F. Murphy, Jr. (pro hac vice) JONES DAY Counsel for Defendants Vintage Wine Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston
ANDREW R. MUEHLBAUER, ESQ.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
CASEY E. SADLER
CHARLES H. LINEHAN (PRO HAC VICE)
LEAD COUNSEL FOR LEAD PLAINTIFFS MARILYN EZZES AND JEFFREY A. DAVIES
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
JEFFREY C. BLOCK (PRO HAC VICE)
COUNSEL FOR ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF MICHAEL F. SALBENBLATT
Michael Gayan, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 11135)
Katrina Stark, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 16006)
KEMP JONES, LLP
John C. Tang (pro hac vice)
Dennis F. Murphy, Jr. (pro hac vice)
JONES DAY
Counsel for Defendants Vintage Wine Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston
STIPULATION EXTENDING LEAD PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' DEADLINE TO FILE A REPLY
HON. GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, Marilyn Ezzes filed a class action complaint (ECF. No. 1) alleging claims against Defendants Vintage Wine Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (the “PSLRA”);
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, the Court approved a stipulation stating that Defendants would not be required to answer or respond to the complaint (ECF No. 1), and that within fourteen (14) days of entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel in this action, Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants shall meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule for the filing of a consolidated and/or amended complaint and for Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss (ECF No. 19);
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order appointing Marilyn Ezzes and Jeffrey A. Davies as Lead Plaintiffs (“Lead Plaintiffs”) and approved Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel (EFC. No. 22);
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Scheduling Stipulation (ECF No. 29) and a proposed order providing that Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint within 60 days after entry of the Order approving the Scheduling Stipulation, that Defendants shall file a motion to dismiss (or any other response) 60 days thereafter, that Lead Plaintiffs file an opposition to any motion to dismiss 45 days thereafter, and that Defendants shall file a reply to the opposition 40 days thereafter;
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2023, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 30) partially granting the Scheduling Stipulation as to the deadlines for the consolidated complaint and motion to dismiss, but denying the request to set dates for the opposition and reply on the grounds that “each request for relief must be contained in a separate motion or stipulation”;
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint (ECF No. 36);
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint (ECF No. 39); and
WHEREAS, counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants have conferred regarding a proposed briefing schedule, with due consideration for the nature of the action, and counsels' schedules, and have agreed that the foregoing considerations warrant an extension of the deadlines to file opposition and reply memoranda, and hereby submit the following schedule, which is consistent with the deadlines the parties submitted in their earlier-filed Scheduling Stipulation;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel, and subject to Court approval, that:
1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss by August 14, 2023.
2. Defendants shall file a reply to Lead Plaintiffs' opposition by September 25, 2023.
This is the second stipulation requesting extension of the parties' deadlines to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and a reply. The first stipulation was denied because it was combined with a request to set dates for the consolidated complaint and motion to dismiss, as detailed above. A proposed order is filed herewith.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION EXTENDING LEAD PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' DEADLINE TO FILE A REPLY
Having considered the parties' Stipulation Extending Lead Plaintiffs' Deadline to File an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Extending Defendants' Deadline to File a Reply, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss by August 14, 2023.
2. Defendants shall file a reply to Lead Plaintiffs' opposition by September 25, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.