Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

THE FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH v. KLEINER PERKINS CAUFIELD & BYERS, 12-cv-06504 SC. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20131216a85 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge. Plaintiff The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, KPCB Holdings, Inc., Domain Associates, LLC, Domain Partners V, L.P., DP V Associates, L.P., Domain Partners VII, L.P., DP VII Associates, L.P., Sears Capital Management, Lowell Sears, both individually and as trustee, Caxton A
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

Plaintiff The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, KPCB Holdings, Inc., Domain Associates, LLC, Domain Partners V, L.P., DP V Associates, L.P., Domain Partners VII, L.P., DP VII Associates, L.P., Sears Capital Management, Lowell Sears, both individually and as trustee, Caxton Advantage Venture Partners, LP, Caxton Advantage Life Sciences Fund, L.P., Stanley E. Abel, and Peter M. Breining ("Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, enter into the following stipulation, based upon the recitals below:

1. WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against Defendants on October 28, 2013;

2. WHEREAS the above-referenced Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 3, 2013;

3. WHEREAS the current briefing schedule requires Plaintiff to file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2013 and the above-referenced Defendants to file a reply on December 24, 2013;

4. WHEREAS the Motion to Dismiss is currently set for hearing on January 10, 2014;

5. WHEREAS the above-referenced Defendants wish for additional time to file their reply brief in light of the nature of the issues presented in the Motion to Dismiss and due to pre-existing holiday schedules and travel plans;

6. WHEREAS counsel for the above-referenced Defendants and Plaintiff have agreed upon a briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss;

7. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that

a. Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss shall be due on or before December 24, 2013. b. The above-referenced Defendants' Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be due on or before January 7, 2014. c. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss shall be continued to January 24, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE STIPULATION, 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