Opinion
2:21-cv-01004-GMN-BNW
02-27-2023
IN RE CLEANSPARK, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS.
WILK AUSLANDER LLP, Jay S. Auslander, Natalie Shkolnik, Aari Itzkowitz, Michael Van Riper, Counsel for Defendants FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MARK J. CONNOT, COLLEEN E. MCCARTY Counsel for Defendants LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD, PATRICK R. LEVERTY, Counsel for Plaintiffs THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C., Timothy Brown Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., Phillip Kim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
WILK AUSLANDER LLP, Jay S. Auslander, Natalie Shkolnik, Aari Itzkowitz, Michael Van Riper, Counsel for Defendants
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MARK J. CONNOT, COLLEEN E. MCCARTY Counsel for Defendants
LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD, PATRICK R. LEVERTY, Counsel for Plaintiffs
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C., Timothy Brown Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., Phillip Kim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED SCHEDULE
BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Andrea Ciceri and Mark Perna (“Plaintiffs”), both derivatively on behalf of Nominal Plaintiff CleanSpark, Inc. (“CleanSpark”) and Defendants Zachary K. Bradford, Lori L. Love, S. Matthew Schultz, Roger P. Beynon, Larry McNeill, Thomas L. Wood, and Nominal Defendant CleanSpark (“Defendants”) (collectively, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation and proposed order:
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2022, this Court issued an Order staying proceedings in this matter (the “Stay Order”); and
WHEREAS, the Stay Order provided that the stay of proceedings in this matter would be terminated upon, inter alia, denial in whole or in part of the then-anticipated motion to dismiss by all defendants in the securities class action currently pending before the Hon. Loretta Preska in the Southern District of New York, Bishins v. CleanSpark, Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-511 (LAP) (the “Securities Class Action”); and
WHEREAS, by Opinion & Order dated January 5, 2023, the court in the Securities Class Action denied defendants' motion to dismiss, thereby terminating the stay of proceedings in this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Stay Order further provided that the Parties meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order for the Court's approval within two weeks of the date that the stay of proceedings in this matter is lifted; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the Court entered an order, based on the Parties' stipulation dated January 19, 2023, extending the deadline for the Parties to file either a proposed scheduling order or a notice updating the Court as to the progress of their meet and confer sessions on or before February 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2023, the Court entered an order, based on the Parties' stipulation dated February 1, 2023, extending the deadline for the Parties to file either a proposed scheduling order or a notice updating the Court as to the progress of their meet and confer sessions on or before February 24, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have been meeting and conferring, including by phone on January 13, 2023 and February 24, 2023, and additional discussions thereafter, concerning a proposed scheduling order; and
WHEREAS, the defendants' answer in the Securities Class Action was filed on February 15, 2023, and the parties to the Securities Class Action are due to file their Rule 26(f) report on or before April 24, 2023;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the Parties hereto, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:
1. The Parties shall file either a proposed scheduling order or a notice updating the Court as to the progress of their meet and confer sessions on or before March 8, 2023. Defendants need not respond to the operative complaint until the date set in the Court's scheduling order.
2. Other than as agreed herein, the Parties reserve all rights.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED