From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 29, 2011
Case No. C11-2448 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

          Gidon M. Caine (Cal. State Bar No. 188110), Alston & Bird LLP.

          Jessica P. Corley (admitted pro hac vice), Elizabeth P. Skola (admitted pro hac vice), Alston & Bird LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, Oclaro, Inc., Alain Couder, Jerry Turin, and James Haynes.

          Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams (Cal. State Bar No. 213113), and Julie A. Kearns (Cal. State Bar No. 246949), Counsel for Plaintiffs.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

          EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Curtis and Charlotte Westley (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), through their counsel, filed a purported class action complaint ("Complaint") against defendants Oclaro, Inc., Alain Couder, Jerry Turin, and James Haynes in the above-entitled matter on May 19, 2011;

         WHEREAS, on July 1, 2011, upon the parties' stipulation, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement by November 25, 2011 and scheduling the Case Management Conference for December 2, 2011;

         WHEREAS, on July 18, 2011, the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (the "Fund") moved the Court for an order appointing the Fund as Lead Plaintiff and approving its selection of counsel as Lead Counsel;

         WHEREAS, on September 12, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the Fund's motion and appointing it as Lead Plaintiff;

         WHEREAS, on October 27, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for violation of the federal securities laws ("Amended Complaint") against defendants Oclaro, Inc., Alain Couder, and Jerry Turin (collectively, "Defendants");

         WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws that are subject to the procedural requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("Reform Act"), including those set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4;

         WHEREAS, Defendants presently intend to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 12, 2011, which would trigger a stay of discovery under the Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B);

         WHEREAS, under the current schedule stipulated by the parties and approved by the Court on July 1, 2011, the briefing on the motion to dismiss will take place through the end of February 2012;

         WHEREAS, the parties intend to request an oral argument date on the motion to dismiss in March 2012;

         WHEREAS, in order to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources or effort by the parties to this action and the Court prior to full briefing on the motion to dismiss, the parties to this action have agreed, in the interim prior to the resolution of the motion to dismiss and subject to the Court's approval, to the continuance of the Case Management Conference and all associated obligations, including the filing of the Joint Case Management Statement; and

         WHEREAS, this Stipulation and Order is without prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights, arguments, or defenses otherwise available to the parties to this action.

         NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

The Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for December 2, 2011, is hereby adjourned to: (a) 30 days after Defendants file an answer; (b) 60 days after (i) the Court rules on Defendants' motion to dismiss and (ii) Lead Plaintiff informs the Court that it will not further amend their Complaint; or (c) to such other date and time as this Court shall order. Until the date of such Case Management Conference, the stay of discovery pursuant to the Reform Act shall stay in place, subject to the parties' right to seek to lift the stay pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B).

         SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

         I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling Case Management Conference. Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X (B) regarding signatures, I, Gidon M. Caine, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 29, 2011
Case No. C11-2448 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS and CHARLOTTE WESTLEY, individually and on behalf of others…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

Case No. C11-2448 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)