Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PERLMUTTER v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., CV-10-03451-LHK. (2011)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20110324h12 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 24, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2011
Summary: STIPULATION RE DATE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LUCYH H. KOH, District Judge. WHEREAS on February 15, 2011, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Reform Act"); WHEREAS prior to that time there was no counsel with authority to negotiate with defendants on behalf of the purported class; WHEREAS in the approximately one month since lead counsel was appointed the parti
More

STIPULATION RE DATE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

LUCYH H. KOH, District Judge.

WHEREAS on February 15, 2011, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Reform Act");

WHEREAS prior to that time there was no counsel with authority to negotiate with defendants on behalf of the purported class;

WHEREAS in the approximately one month since lead counsel was appointed the parties have met and conferred about the merits of the case;

WHEREAS the parties have shared documentary and other evidence regarding the merits notwithstanding the discovery stay imposed by the Reform Act;

WHEREAS the parties are engaged in discussions in an attempt to resolve the case;

WHEREAS those discussions have been productive and the parties intend to continue to meet, including, if appropriate, under the auspices of a private mediator;

WHEREAS the parties are mindful of the Court's desire to move this case toward resolution;

WHEREAS the Court set the following schedule in its February 15, 2011 order:

Amended Complaint: April 1, 2011 Motion to Dismiss: May 16, 2011 Opposition: June 30, 2011 Reply: July 25, 2011 Motion Hearing and CMC August 11, 2011

WHEREAS a two week extension of time for filing am amended complaint (if any) and a one week extension of time to file a motion to dismiss (if any) and the opposition thereto would permit the parties to continue their discussions and potentially resolve the case;

WHEREAS the parties proposed schedule will not alter the hearing date on the motion to dismiss or the dates for a reply brief to be filed; and

WHEREAS the parties to this Action agree that under the unique circumstances of this case, justice and judicial economy will best be served if this Court approves the following stipulated and agreed schedule.

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED, SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S APPROVAL:

The parties shall abide by the following deadlines:

Amended Complaint: April 16, 2011 (two weeks later than previously ordered) Motion to Dismiss: May 23, 2011 (one week later than previously ordered) Opposition: July 7, 2011 (one week later than previously ordered) Reply: July 25, 2011 (no chagne) Motion Hearing and CMC: August 11, 2011 (no change)

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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