Opinion
2:22-cv-01580
01-04-2023
VINEET PAREKH, Individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVALARA, INC., SCOTT MCFARLANE, BRUCE CRAWFORD, MARION FOOTE, EDWARD GILHULY, WILLIAM INGRAM, MARCELA MARTIN, TAMI RELLER, BRIAN SHARPLES, RAJEEV SINGH, SRINIVAS TALLAPRAGADA, and KATHY ZWICKERT, Defendants.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC Roger M. Townsend, WSBA #25525 Counsel for Plaintiff MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Juan E. Monteverde (PHV Forthcoming) Attorneys for Plaintiff SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP James P. Savitt, WSBA #16847 Counsel for Defendants KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Matthew Solum (PHV Forthcoming) Jacob M. Rae (PHV Forthcoming) Attorneys for Defendants
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC Roger M. Townsend, WSBA #25525 Counsel for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Juan E. Monteverde (PHV Forthcoming) Attorneys for Plaintiff
SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP James P. Savitt, WSBA #16847 Counsel for Defendants
OF COUNSEL
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Matthew Solum (PHV Forthcoming) Jacob M. Rae (PHV Forthcoming) Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER REGARDING SERVICE, MOTION SCHEDULE, AND FRCP 26(F) CONFERENCE
Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge
Plaintiff Vineet Parekh (“Parekh”) and Defendants Avalara, Inc., Scott McFarlane, Bruce Crawford, Marion Foote, Edward Gilhuly, William Ingram, Marcela Martin, Tami Reller, Brian Sharples, Rajeev Singh, Srinivas Tallapragada, and Kathy Zwickert (collectively, “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) in connection with the sale of Avalara, Inc. (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1);
WHEREAS, Defendants have agreed to accept service of the Complaint through their undersigned counsel;
WHEREAS, this case is governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq., which provides a set procedure for a court to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a putative class action arising under the Exchange Act after a press release notice is issued;
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2022, Plaintiff caused the aforementioned notice to be published, providing members of the purported plaintiff class with the information required pursuant to the PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A));
WHEREAS, pursuant to the PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II)), on or before January 6, 2023, any member of the purported plaintiff class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported plaintiff class and Plaintiff intends to so move;
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that, for reasons of judicial efficiency and economy, Defendants should be permitted to hold their response to the Complaint in abeyance at least until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and approves lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel, and such lead plaintiff files an amended complaint, if any;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B)), “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss”; and
WHEREAS, this is the first request for an extension of time by any party.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court's approval, as follows:
1. The PSLRA (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)), provides that “[n]ot later than 90 days after the date on which” the requisite notice was published, i.e., on or before February 6, 2023, the Court “shall consider any motion” for appointment of lead plaintiff and “shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members”;
2. Thirty days after the Court's entry of an order appointing a lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of lead counsel, Lead Plaintiff shall either file an amended class action complaint which will be deemed the operative complaint in this action (the “Operative Complaint”), or file a notice designating the present Complaint as the Operative Complaint;
3. Defendants shall file an answer or response to the Operative Complaint no later than 45 days from the date the Operative Complaint is served on Defendants;
4. If Defendants file a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 in response to the Operative Complaint (“Motion”), Lead Plaintiff's response to the Motion (“Response”) shall be filed no later than 45 days from the date the Motion is served on Lead Plaintiff;
5. Defendants' reply in further support of their Motion shall be filed no later than 30 days from the date Lead Plaintiff's Response is served on Defendants;
6. The deadlines for (i) an initial FRCP 26(f) conference, (ii) initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1), and (iii) the combined joint status report and discovery plan should be vacated and rescheduled sine die until after Defendants answer the Complaint or after the Court renders a ruling on the a motion to dismiss.
STIPULATED AND AGREED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.