Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03344/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03344-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

 Defendant Maxim filed a motion to stay on September 25, 2008. (See Docket Item No.

199.) Individual Defendants John F. Gifford and Carl W. Jasper have since joined that motion. (See

Docket Item Nos. 206, 209.) The remaining Individual Defendants have stated their intention to

also file a motion to stay. (See Application at 1.) Defendant Maxim has also filed an interim motion

to stay proceedings until the Court has ruled on the initial motion to stay. (See Docket Item No.

201.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.,

Derivative Litigation

 /

NO. C 06-03344 JW 

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION AND JOINDER OF

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO

RESPOND TO THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Respond

to The Third Amended Complaint. (hereafter, “Application,” Docket Item Nos. 191, 204.)

Defendants request a continuance on their deadline for responding to the Third Amended Complaint,

filed on September 19, 2008, until the latter of (a) the resolution of their Motion to Stay, filed

September 25, 2008,1

 or (b) the resolution of the settlement-approval process underway in a related

Delaware action.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), Defendants have until October 9, 2008 to file their Answers to

the Third Amended Complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the Court has the authority to, “for good

cause,” extend Defendants’ time for filing their Answers.

Case 5:06-cv-03344-JW Document 217 Filed 10/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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

In a related derivative action pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, the

parties have reached a settlement and filed a stipulation of settlement for approval by the court. (See

Michael J. Ioannou Letter and Attachments, hereafter, “Delaware Settlement Stipulation,” Docket

Item No. 187.) An approval hearing is set for November 24, 2008. (See Michael J. Ioannou Letter,

Docket Item No. 188.) If the Delaware court approves the settlement, Defendants will move to

dismiss this action because the settlement stipulation will purportedly constitute the full and final

disposition of all claims related to any party that could have been named in this case, the Delaware

Action, and the related California state actions. (See Delaware Settlement Stipulation ¶¶ 3.1, 1.14.)

Defendants contend that they should not be required to expend the resources necessary to

respond to the Third Amended Complaint because approval of the settlement would moot their

response. Defendants have also filed a motion to stay and an ex parte motion for an interim stay

until a hearing is held on the motion to stay. (See Docket Item Nos. 199, 201.) Since no answers to

the previous Complaints have been filed, and the Third Amended Complaint is over 151 pages,

answering the Third Amended Complaint will require a substantial effort on the part of Defendants. 

In addition, because this is a derivative action, Maxim itself will bear a great deal of the cost of

preparing the Individual Defendants’ Answers.

The Court finds that good cause exists for extending Defendants’ time to answer. However,

Defendants’ request that their time for filing be extended until the latter of the resolution of their

motion to stay or the settlement proceedings in Delaware. This request seeks substantial delay

before the Court has considered of the merits of Defendants’ motion to stay. Accordingly, the Court

finds the particular extension requested by the Defendants is unwarranted.

Plaintiffs contend that no extension should be granted because the preclusive effect, and

therefore the mooting effect, of the Delaware settlement is speculative. (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Respond to Third Amended Complaint,

hereafter, “Opposition,” Docket Item No. 207.) According to Plaintiff, the Delaware action

concerns only state law claims and the settlement does not provide consideration for Plaintiffs’

Exchange Act claims brought here. (Opposition at 1-2.) These issues are more appropriately

Case 5:06-cv-03344-JW Document 217 Filed 10/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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 3

addressed with Defendants’ motion to stay. Further, Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a minor

delay while the Court fully addresses the merits Defendants’ motion to stay.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to

Respond to The Third Amended Complaint. Defendants shall file and serve their Answers, the

earlier of (a) ten days after the resolution of the Defendants’ pending Motion to Stay or (b) ten days

after the resolution of the settlement-approval process underway in Delaware. 

Dated: October 2, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03344-JW Document 217 Filed 10/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christina Leigh Wu christinawu@quinnemanuel.com

Christopher William Johnstone chris.johnstone@lw.com

Darren Jay Robbins e_file_sd@csgrr.com

David Siegel dsiegel@irell.com

David Michael Friedman david.friedman@lw.com

Douglas Leavitt LEAVITT@DS-L.COM

Elizabeth B. Wydra elizabethwydra@quinnemanuel.com

Eric L. Zagar ezagar@sbtklaw.com

Garland Aycuff Kelley GKelley@irell.com

Heather Lynn Thompson heather.thompson@lw.com

John Charles Hueston jhueston@irell.com

John Mark Potter johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com

Jonathan Herschel Bornstein jonathan@bornsteinandbornstein.com

Lita Monique Verrier lverrier@rmkb.com

Michael J. Ioannou mioannou@rmkb.com

Monique C. Winkler e_file_sd@csgrr.com

Ofer Bleiweiss obleiweiss@irell.com

Patrick C. Doolittle patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com

Rees Ferriter Morgan rees.morgan@lw.com

Risha Nickelle Jamison risha.jamison@lw.com

Scott Gregory Lawson scottlawson@quinnemanuel.com

Shaunt Toros Arevian sarevian@irell.com

Shawn A. Williams shawnw@csgrr.com

Steven Bauer steve.bauer@lw.com

Susan Germer susangermer@quinnemanuel.com

Travis E. Downs travisd@csgrr.com

Dated: October 2, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-03344-JW Document 217 Filed 10/02/08 Page 4 of 4