STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND PENDING REMAND PROCEEDINGS

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation ("Plaintiff") and Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this putative class action (the "Complaint") in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Adam Kriger, Richard McNally, Charles Denson, and Diane Irvine (collectively, the "Funko Defendants"); Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; ACON Investments, L.L.C.; and Fundamental Capital, LLC (collectively, the "Additional Defendants," and together with the Funko Defendants, the "Defendants").

2. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a, et seq.

3. On February 23, 2018, the Funko Defendants removed this action to this Court, along with two additional cases arising out of the same allegations and asserting substantially the same causes of action as this case. See Baskin v. Funko, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00281-RSM; Surratt v. Funko, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00283-RSM.

4. Although the Funko Defendants identified all three removed actions as "related to" Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00201-RSM, which the Funko Defendants removed to this Court on February 7, 2018, the cases were assigned to different judges.

5. On March 2, 2018, this action was reassigned to Judge Ricardo S. Martinez, as related to Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-00201-RSM.

6. Plaintiff intends to file a motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

7. There have been no prior extensions of time for Defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this Court.

8. Subject to this Court's approval, the Defendants' time within which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended pending the Court's resolution of any motion to remand that Plaintiff may file, except as otherwise ordered by the Court.

9. Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, after a decision is issued on any motion to remand that Plaintiff may file, the undersigned parties will confer regarding a schedule for answering, moving, or otherwise responding to the Complaint.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

I. ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, it is so ORDERED.