From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jun 12, 2015
Master Docket 3:11-cv-03269-CRB, 3:11-cv-03301-CRB., 3:11-cv-03302-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)

Opinion

          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, BRIAN J. ROBBINS, CRAIG W. SMITH, SHANE P. SANDERS, GINA STASSI, San Diego, CA, Counsel and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.

          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP, FRANK J. JOHNSON, BRETT M. WEAVER, SHAWN E. FIELDS, San Diego, California, THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., KATHLEEN A. HERKENHOFF, San Diego, CA, THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., ROBERT B. WEISER, BRETT D. STECKER, Berwyn, PA, Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.

          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, ROY L. JACOBS, New York, NY, RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP, KATHARINE M. RYAN, RICHARD A. MANISKAS, Wayne, PA, Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs.

          ROBEIN, URANN, SPENCER, PICARD & CANGEMI, APLC., MARIA CANGEMI, CHRISTINA CARROLL, Metairie, LA, Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund.

          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, JORDAN ETH, ANNA ERICKSON WHITE, MARK R.S. FOSTER, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Nominal Defendant Yahoo! Inc. and Defendants Carol A. Bartz, Jerry Yang, Roy Bostock, Patti Hart, Susan James, Vyomesh Joshi, David Kenny, Arthur Kern, Brad Smith, and Gary Wilson.


          JOINT STIPULATION SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDER

          CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

         Plaintiffs Debra Salzman, Yahia Tawila, and Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants (collectively the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

"Defendants" refers to Carol A. Bartz, Jerry Yang, Roy Bostock, Patti S. Hart, Susan M. James, Vyomesh Joshi, David Kenny, Arthur H. Kern, Brad D. Smith, Gary L. Wilson, and Nominal Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo" or the "Company").

         WHEREAS, on March 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") (Dkt. No. 46);

         WHEREAS, on June 7, 2012, this Court entered an order temporarily deferring prosecution of this Action pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, captioned In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation, Master Docket No.: 11-cv-02732-CRB (the "Securities Class Action") (Dkt. No. 48);

         WHEREAS, on August 10, 2012, this Court issued an order granting the Securities Class Action defendants' motion to dismiss, and entered a judgment dismissing the Securities Class Action on September 11, 2012;

         WHEREAS, on September 18, 2012, the Securities Class Action defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Court of Appeals");

         WHEREAS, on December, 13, 2013, this Court granted defendants' motion to stay this Action pending the Court of Appeals ruling on the Securities Class Action appeal (the "Stay"), and ordered that the Parties meet and confer no later than fourteen days after the Court of Appeal's ruling and file a status report no later than seven days after meeting and conferring (Dkt. No. 64);

         WHEREAS, on May 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the August 10, 2012 order dismissing the Securities Class Action;

         WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and have agreed upon a proposed schedule for the designation of an operative complaint and/or the filing of an amended complaint, defendants' motion(s) to dismiss and briefing thereon, and a hearing on the motion(s) to dismiss; and

         WHEREAS, in the event that there are further developments in the Securities Class Action, the parties here will meet and confer again to discuss whether the stay should be renewed and report back to the Court.

         NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE, SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL, AS FOLLOWS:

         1. Plaintiffs shall file an amended consolidated complaint, or designate an operative complaint, on or before July 3, 2015.

         2. Defendants shall file any motion(s) to dismiss on or before August 24, 2015.

         3. Plaintiffs shall file any opposition(s) to Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss on or before October 23, 2015.

         4. Defendants shall file any replies in support of their motion(s) to dismiss on or before November 20, 2015.

         5. Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss shall be set for hearing on December 11, 2015, or a later date that is convenient for the Court.

         6. In the event that there are further developments in the Securities Class Action, the parties here will meet and confer regarding whether the stay should be renewed and report back to the Court.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Having reviewed the parties' Joint Stipulation Setting Briefing Schedule and good cause shown, the Court hereby orders:

         1. Plaintiffs will file an amended consolidated complaint, or designate an operative complaint on or before July 3, 2015.

         2. Defendants shall file any motion(s) to dismiss on or before August 24, 2015.

         3. Plaintiffs shall file any opposition(s) to Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss on or before October 23, 2015.

         4. Defendants shall file any replies in support of their motion(s) to dismiss on or before November 20, 2015.

         5. Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss shall be set for hearing on December 11, 2015, or a later date that is convenient for the Court.

         6. In the event that there are further developments in the Securities Class Action, the parties here will meet and confer regarding whether the stay should be renewed and report back to the Court.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Jun 12, 2015
Master Docket 3:11-cv-03269-CRB, 3:11-cv-03301-CRB., 3:11-cv-03302-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)
Case details for

In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE YAHOO! INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. This Document Relates…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2015

Citations

Master Docket 3:11-cv-03269-CRB, 3:11-cv-03301-CRB., 3:11-cv-03302-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)