From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mulderrig v. Amyris, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 27, 2021
No. 19-CV-1765-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021)

Summary

In Mulderrig, a proposed class representative was found to be atypical because his pre-litigation conduct and deposition testimony suggested that he actually understood the disclosures he alleged were misleading, directly contradicting the allegations in the complaint.

Summary of this case from Jaeger v. Zillow Grp.

Opinion

19-CV-1765-YGR

08-27-2021

Shane Mulderrig, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Amyris, Inc., et al.,, Defendants.


ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND GRANTING REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINES

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge

The Court has reviewed the docket in this action and notes the pending motion for class certification. Accordingly, until the Court has resolved the motion, the Court finds that a further case management conference in this matter is premature and will reset it at a later date. This order is not intended to be an indication as to the merits of the motion.

Further, the parties' joint request to extend discovery and other deadlines in their Joint Case Management Statement is Granted. (Dkt. No. 88.) Accordingly, the deadline to amend pleadings is continued to September 10, 2021; the close of fact discovery is continued to March 1, 2022; the deadline to exchange expert report on issues where party has burden of proof is continued to April 12, 2022; the deadline to exchange responsive expert reports is continued to May 24, 2022; the deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports is June 24, 2022; the expert discovery cutoff is continued to August 23, 2022; the deadline for filing of summary judgment motions is continued to October 12, 2022; the deadline for filing for oppositions is continued to December 7, 2022; and the deadline for filing of replies is continued to January 18, 2023.

It Is So Ordered.


Summaries of

Mulderrig v. Amyris, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 27, 2021
No. 19-CV-1765-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021)

In Mulderrig, a proposed class representative was found to be atypical because his pre-litigation conduct and deposition testimony suggested that he actually understood the disclosures he alleged were misleading, directly contradicting the allegations in the complaint.

Summary of this case from Jaeger v. Zillow Grp.
Case details for

Mulderrig v. Amyris, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Shane Mulderrig, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Amyris, Inc., et al.,, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 27, 2021

Citations

No. 19-CV-1765-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021)

Citing Cases

Pardi v. Tricida, Inc.

Courts were also wary of shortening class periods based on truth on the market defenses, as determining…

Lamartina v. VMware, Inc.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court “must consider whether questions capable of resolution ‘generalized,…