Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

APPLESTEIN v. MEDIVATION INC., CV-10-0998 EMC (2011)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20110617c36 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 17, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2011
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME; ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Please Take Notice that pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants Medivation, Inc., David T. Hung, C. Patrick Machado, and Lynn Seely ("Defendants") request an order changing time of deadlines fixed under Civil Local Rule 7-3. WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint on May 9, 2011; WHEREAS, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss as well as a motion
More

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME; ORDER

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Please Take Notice that pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants Medivation, Inc., David T. Hung, C. Patrick Machado, and Lynn Seely ("Defendants") request an order changing time of deadlines fixed under Civil Local Rule 7-3.

WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint on May 9, 2011;

WHEREAS, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss as well as a motion to take judicial notice, on June 8, 2011;

WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff's memoranda of law in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss and for judicial notice ("Opposition Memoranda") are due to be filed and served on June 22, 2011 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a);

WHEREAS, Defendants' memoranda of law in reply to Plaintiff's Opposition Memoranda ("Reply Memoranda") are due to be filed and served on June 29, 2011 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(c);

WHEREAS hearing on the above-referenced matter before this Court is currently noticed for July 15, 2011;

WHEREAS discovery and other proceedings are stayed while the motion to dismiss is pending pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Section 27(b)(1) and there is currently no scheduling order for this action;

WHEREAS on June 15, 2011, Lead Plaintiff Filed a Motion For an Enlargement of Time to File its Memoranda of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for Judicial Notice, and Defendants do not oppose this motion;

WHEREAS there have been no prior requests for an extension of time by either party;

WHEREAS the parties have conferred and agree upon the dates set forth in the Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

1. Plaintiff's Opposition Memorandum shall be filed on or before July 8, 2011; 2. Defendants Reply Memorandum shall be filed on or before July 22, 2011; 3. The hearing on this matter shall be held on August 12, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. or on such other date as may be convenient for the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FILER'S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned attests that all parties have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation for Extension of Time.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer