Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02256/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02256-0/pdf.json

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

---

SD\614669.1 

 

No. 07 CV 2245 BTM (NLS)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION REGARDING EXTENSION 

OF TIME FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HCL PARTNERS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, On Behalf of Itself and All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESON, MARK 

H. RACHESKY, AMIN I. KHALIFA, and 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 

 Defendants. 

CLASS ACTION NO. 07 CV 2245 BTM (NLS) 

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION REGARDING 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RESPONSE TO 

COMPLAINT AND ADDITIONAL FILING 

PERIODS 

The Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz, United 

States District Court Judge 

CASE CAPTIONS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 

Case 3:07-cv-02256-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 3
2

 SD\614669.1 

 

No. 07 CV 2245 BTM (NLS)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION REGARDING EXTENSION 

OF TIME FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS

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 

FRANK CHAREK, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESON, MARK 

H. RACHESKY, AMIN I. KHALFIA, 

GLENN UMETSU and DEAN M. LUVISA, 

 Defendants. 

CLASS ACTION NO. 07 CV 2256 BTM (NLS) 

DEVAY CAMPBELL, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESON, MARK H. 

RACHESKY, AMIN I. KHALFA, GLENN 

UMETSU and DEAN M. LUVISA, 

 Defendants. 

CLASS ACTION NO. 07 CV 2297 BTM (NLS) 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaints 

filed in the above-captioned matter or any subsequently-filed, related actions that are transferred 

to Judge Moskowitz pursuant to the “Low Number” Rule until a date after the Lead Plaintiff and 

Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel are appointed and file a Consolidated Complaint. 

2. The Lead Plaintiff shall have 45 days after a Lead Plaintiff is appointed to 

file and serve a Consolidated Complaint; and 

3. Defendants shall have 45 days after the filing and service of a Consolidated 

Complaint to move to dismiss or otherwise respond; 

4. The Lead Plaintiff shall have 45 days after the filing and service of 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss to file an opposition; 

Case 3:07-cv-02256-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 3
3

 SD\614669.1 

 

No. 07 CV 2245 BTM (NLS)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION REGARDING EXTENSION 

OF TIME FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS

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 

5. Defendants shall have 30 days after the filing and service of Lead 

Plaintiff’s opposition to file a reply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 2, 2008 ____________________________________ 

 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02256-BTM-NLS Document 8 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 3