Filed: May 25, 2011
Latest Update: May 25, 2011
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, lead plaintiff John Ingram and defendants VIVUS, Inc., Leland F. Wilson, and Wesley W. Day, Ph.D. (collectively, the "Parties"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to and seek the Court's approval of an order extending the page limits for briefing on defendants' anticipated motion
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, lead plaintiff John Ingram and defendants VIVUS, Inc., Leland F. Wilson, and Wesley W. Day, Ph.D. (collectively, the "Parties"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to and seek the Court's approval of an order extending the page limits for briefing on defendants' anticipated motion ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, lead plaintiff John Ingram and defendants VIVUS, Inc., Leland F. Wilson, and Wesley W. Day, Ph.D. (collectively, the "Parties"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to and seek the Court's approval of an order extending the page limits for briefing on defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
RECITALS
WHEREAS on April 4, 2011, lead plaintiff timely filed the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. No. 25) (the "Amended Complaint"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's February 3, 2011 Order setting a schedule for the filing of, and response to, the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23), the deadline for defendants to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint is June 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the defendants believe that, because of the length of the Amended Complaint, defendants will need additional pages in their opening and reply briefs in support of their anticipated motion to dismiss to fully respond to the allegations; and
WHEREAS, lead plaintiff does not oppose an extension of the page limits for defendants' opening and reply briefs on the anticipated motion to dismiss to 32 and 22 pages, respectively;
WHEREAS, defendants do not oppose a corresponding extension of the page limit for lead plaintiff's opposition to defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss to 35 pages;
STIPULATION
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, that, subject to the Court's approval, that the page limits for the briefing on defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss will be as follows:
(a) defendants' opening brief shall be not longer than 32 pages; and
(b) lead plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss shall be not longer than 35 pages; and
(c) defendants reply in support of the motion to dismiss shall be not longer than 22 pages.
SO STIPULATED.
I, Howard S. Caro, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Extending Page Limits For Briefing on Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Azra Mehdi has concurred in this filing.
HOWARD S. CARO
* * *
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and good cause appearing, the page limits for the briefing on defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss will be as follows:
(a) defendants' opening brief shall be not longer than 32 30 pages; and
(b) lead plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss shall be not longer than 35 30 pages; and
(c) defendants reply in support of the motion to dismiss shall be not longer than 22 20 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
