Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05421-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME; DENYING MOTION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT

FOR THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-03-05421 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/19/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC.

SECURITIES LITIGATION,

This Document Relates To:

 

 ALL ACTIONS.

No. C-03-05421 RMW

ORDER GRANTING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME; DENYING

MOTION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT

FOR THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re Docket No. 260]

By order dated July 31, 2006, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended

Consolidated Class Action Complaint in this matter with leave to amend, specifying that the lead

plaintiff's second amended complaint was not to exceed 50 pages. On September 30, 2007, the court

granted defendants' motions to dismiss lead plaintiff's Second Amended Consolidated Class Action

Complaint, granting plaintiff 20 days leave to amend. Although it did not so specify in its

September 30, 2007 order, the parties have correctly surmised that the 50-page limit applies to the

third amended complaint. On October 16, 2007, lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking a thirty-day

extension of time to file its third amended complaint. It also asks the court for permission to exceed

the 50-page limit so that it may file an amended complaint of up to 100 pages. Lead plaintiff sought

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 264 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME; DENYING MOTION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT

FOR THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-03-05421 RMW

MAG 2

but was unable to obtain a stipulation from defendants, who also oppose this motion.

Lead plaintiff contends that the additional time is necessary "due to existing scheduling

demands and in order to properly address the Court's opinion regarding the [Second Amended Class

Action Complaint]." Mot. at 1. It also contends that the additional pages are necessary "to provide

additional detail that the Court deemed lacking in the SAC, and that Lead Plaintiff could not fit

within the prior 50-page limit." Id. Defendants counsel notes that it usually amenable to stipulating

to time extensions. However, in this case, the defendants feel that the additional time, part of which

is to be used to conduct additional factual research and seek out additional witnesses to support

claims dismissed by the court, is unwarranted given that this matter complaint was originally filed in

2003 and the plaintiffs have already had three years to seek factual support for their allegations. 

Defendants oppose the request to file a complaint of up to 100 pages, pointing out that the court has

already held that many of the challenged statements in the Second Amended Consolidated Class

Action Complaint cannot be the basis for a securities fraud claim. They contend that the elimination

of those statements makes the 50-page limit more than adequate.

The court denies lead plaintiff's request to file a third amended complaint in excess of the 50-

page limit. However, because of the anticipated complexity involved in addressing the court's

concerns with the prior complaint and the fact that lead plaintiff will be required to plead its claims

within the previously-established page limit, the court finds good cause to grant lead plaintiff's

request for a 30-day extension. 

DATED: 10/19/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 264 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME; DENYING MOTION TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT

FOR THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-03-05421 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Julie Juhyun Bai jbai@bermanesq.com

Luke O Brooks lukeb@csgrr.com

Solomon B. Cera scera@gbcslaw.com

Patrick J. Coughlin PatC@csgrr.com

Kimberly C. Epstein kimcor@lerachlaw.com

Linda M. Fong lfong@kaplanfox.com

Gwendolyn R. Giblin ggiblin@gbcslaw.com

Michael M. Goldberg info@glancylaw.com

Matthew K. Handley mhandley@cmht.com

Marc S. Henzel mhenzel182@aol.com

Laurence D. King lking@kaplanfox.com

Nicole Catherine Lavallee nlavallee@bermanesq.com

William S. Lerach e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

David Avi Rosenfeld drosenfeld@geller-rudman.com

Samuel H. Rudman srudman@csgrr.com

Christopher Paul Seefer chriss@csgrr.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Daniel W. Turbow dturbow@wsgr.com

Leo Patrick Cunningham lcunningham@wsgr.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/19/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-05421-RMW Document 264 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3