Filed: Aug. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. WHEREAS, on June 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (the "Amended Com-plaint") (Docket 50); WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, the Court granted the following motions: defendants Hewlett-Packard Company 401(K) Plan, Hewlett-Packard Company, David W. Healy, Catherine A. Lesjak, Marc A. Levine, John N. McMullen, James T. Mur
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. WHEREAS, on June 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (the "Amended Com-plaint") (Docket 50); WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, the Court granted the following motions: defendants Hewlett-Packard Company 401(K) Plan, Hewlett-Packard Company, David W. Healy, Catherine A. Lesjak, Marc A. Levine, John N. McMullen, James T. Murr..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (the "Amended Com-plaint") (Docket 50);
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, the Court granted the following motions: defendants Hewlett-Packard Company 401(K) Plan, Hewlett-Packard Company, David W. Healy, Catherine A. Lesjak, Marc A. Levine, John N. McMullen, James T. Murrin, John F. Schultz and Shoreline Investment Management Company's joint motion to dismiss (Docket 81); and defendant Michael J. Holston's individual motion to dismiss (Docket 78) without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend (Docket 116);
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (the "Second Amended Complaint") (Docket 121);
WHEREAS, by stipulation and order dated April 16, 2014, the Court set a schedule for briefing defandants' anticipated motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docket 118), according to which defendants' motion would be due on September 2, 2014; plaintiffs' brief in op-position would be due on October 17, 2014, and defendants' reply briefs would be due on Novem-ber 17, 2014;
WHEREAS, counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendants desire to amend the briefing schedule on the anticipated motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the Court's approval, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the undersigned parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, as follows:
1. Defendants shall move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint on or before September 12, 2014.
2. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, assuming such motions are filed, on or before November 6, 2014.
3. Defendants shall file their replies in support of any motions to dismiss on or before December 19, 2014.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
