Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Oswald ex rel. Identiv, Inc. v. Humphreys, 3:16-CV-00241-CRB. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160809778 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON NOMINAL DEFENDANT IDENTIV, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . WHEREAS, this action is a shareholder derivative action filed on January 14, 2016; WHEREAS, this action is factually related to a putative class action alleging violations of federal securities laws that is also pending before this Court: Rok v. Identiv, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775-CRB (the "Securities Class Action"); WH
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON NOMINAL DEFENDANT IDENTIV, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

WHEREAS, this action is a shareholder derivative action filed on January 14, 2016;

WHEREAS, this action is factually related to a putative class action alleging violations of federal securities laws that is also pending before this Court: Rok v. Identiv, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775-CRB (the "Securities Class Action");

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order regarding a temporary stay of this action and setting a schedule for filing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Identiv, Inc.'s ("Identiv") response to that complaint (Docket No. 14), which the Court approved on March 8, 2016 (Docket No. 15);

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Docket No. 21);

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, Identiv filed its Motion to Dismiss and noticed a hearing on the Motion for September 16, 2016 (Docket No. 22);

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss is currently due August 15, 2016;

WHEREAS, in light of the short period of time for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss under the current briefing schedule and Plaintiff counsel's pre-existing summer schedule, as well as the Court's current availability, Plaintiff has requested that Identiv agree to an extension of the current briefing schedule and a continuance of the current hearing date;

WHEREAS, Identiv has no objection to this request; and

NOW, THEREFORE the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order as follows:

1. Plaintiff's response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is due September 1, 2016.

2. Defendants' reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss is due September 30, 2016.

3. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss will be held on October 14, 2016, or at another date and time as the Court may order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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