Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

IN RE DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, 3:13-cv-02796-CRB. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140505a19 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 01, 2014
Latest Update: May 01, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge. Lead Plaintiff Khaled Khalafallah ("Lead Plaintiff") and Defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina, J. Tyler Martin, Mark Kessel, Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC (together, the "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Lead Plaintiff Khaled Khalafallah ("Lead Plaintiff") and Defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina, J. Tyler Martin, Mark Kessel, Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC (together, the "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina, J. Tyler Martin and Mark Kessel previously stipulated (and the Court ordered) that Lead Plaintiff would file an amended complaint by April 7, 2014 and that those Defendants would respond to the Complaint by May 12, 2014 (Dkt No. 64);

WHEREAS, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on April 7, 2014 (Dkt. No. 65);

WHEREAS, the Complaint names several new defendants not previously named in this action: Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC; and

WHEREAS, due to the addition of new defendants and other changes made in the Complaint, the Defendants have requested, and Lead Plaintiff has agreed, to a lengthier briefing schedule for Defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss the Complaint;

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that memoranda of points and authorities may not exceed 25 pages, but this Court's Standing Order provides that any such memoranda may not exceed 15 pages;

WHEREAS, given the length of the Complaint, which spans 203 paragraphs over 74 pages, the scope of the putative class period, and the legal issues that must be addressed, the 15-page limit would prevent the Parties from adequately setting forth their arguments in support of and in opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss; and

WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties met and conferred to discuss page limits for the briefing of the motions to dismiss, and agreed that the page limits for both Defendants' opening briefs in support of and Lead Plaintiff's oppositions to the motions to dismiss should be increased to 25 pages.

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that,

1. Defendants shall have until June 6, 2014 to file their motion(s) to dismiss the Complaint;

2. Lead Plaintiff shall have until August 8, 2014 to file his opposition(s) to the motions to dismiss the Complaint;

3. Defendants shall have until September 12, 2014 to file their reply brief(s) in support of their motions to dismiss the Complaint;

4. The Parties will meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable hearing date for the motions to dismiss;

5. Defendants' opening briefs in support of their motions to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages in length; and

6. Lead Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendants' motions to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages in length.

ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3))

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory.

* * *

PURSUANT TO 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