Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04524-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC.,

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

_______________________________________/

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

 /

No. C 06-03468 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STAY; ALLOWING TWO

DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to stay this litigation pending consideration of a demand by the

board of directors of nominal defendant Openwave Systems, Inc. The stay motion is scheduled for

hearing on April 18, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate

for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing.

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was due on February 29, 2008. On February 27, 2008, plaintiffs

filed a motion for extension of time until March 14, 2008, to amend their complaint. On March 7, 2008,

the Court granted an extension but required plaintiffs to file their complaint by the end of that day.

Plaintiffs did not do so, and still have not filed an amended complaint. Instead, plaintiffs filed the

current motion to stay, explaining that they planned to make a demand on the current directors and that

this action, in which plaintiffs had pursued a theory of demand futility, should be stayed pending the

consideration of the demand. Defendants vigorously oppose the motion, and plaintiffs have failed to

reply to defendants’ arguments. Because the Openwave directors have not yet refused the demand, the

Court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs may not yet bring a suit alleging wrongful refusal of a

demand. In addition, plaintiffs have put forth no legal support for their suggestion that the Court stay

this litigation. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to stay.

Case 3:06-cv-04524-SI Document 13 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Although the Court has concerns that by making a demand, plaintiffs may have conceded that

demand would not be futile, the Court will permit plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, should they

wish to do so. The Court notes that it inadvertently granted plaintiffs an extension of time on the same

day the amended complaint was due. Therefore, if plaintiffs wish, they may file an amended

complaint within two days of the date of this order, i.e., no later than Friday, April 18, 2008.

The case management conference currently scheduled for April 18, 2008 is continued until

Friday, June 20, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04524-SI Document 13 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2