Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-02020/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-02020-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Securities &amp; Exchange Commission Act

---

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPL. AND SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 02-2020 CW 

sf-2502013 

RICHARD S.E. JOHNS, (SBN 053024)

KIPPERMAN & JOHNS 

57 Post Street, Suite 604 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 781-8494 

Facsimile: (415) 397-0792 

RICHARD B. BRUALDI 

GAITRI BOODHOO 

AYESHA N. ONYEKWELU 

THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C 

29 Broadway, Suite 1515 

New York, New York 10006 

Telephone: (212) 952-0602 

SCOTT W. FISHER 

GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 

1501 Broadway 

New York, New York 10036 

Telephone: (212) 398-0055 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

JORDAN ETH (SBN 121617)

TERRI GARLAND (SBN 169563) 

PHILIP T. BESIROF (SBN 185053) 

RAYMOND M. HASU (SBN 200058) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

Email: RHasu@mofo.com 

Attorney for Nominal Defendants JDS 

Uniphase Corporation and Individual 

Defendants Jozef Straus, Don Scifres, 

Martin A. Kaplan, Bruce D. Day, 

Robert E. Enos, Peter A. Guglielmi, 

John A. MacNaughton, Wilson Sibbett, 

Anthony R. Muller, M. Zita Cobb, 

Joseph Ip, Charles J. Abbe, Frederick L 

Leonberger, Michael C. Phillips, and 

Harry Deffebach 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ROBERT CORWIN, Derivatively On Behalf of 

JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MARTIN A. KAPLAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 and 

JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-02-2020 CW

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT 

AND SCHEDULING AS 

MODIFIED 

Case 4:02-cv-02020-CW Document 81 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPL. AND SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 02-2020 CW 

sf-2502013 

1

WHEREAS, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; 

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2005, the Court issued an order, inter alia: 

a. stating that the “material facts in this action are the same” as those in the 

related securities class action captioned In re JDS Uniphase Securities 

Litigation (the “Main Securities Class Action”); 

b. stating that “[b]ecause the Court has denied the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss in that case, it would not be in the interest of justice for the Court 

to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss here, even though Plaintiff’s 

current complaint is still not adequately plead[ed]”; and 

c. staying this action pending resolution of the Main Securities Class Action; 

WHEREAS, on January 19, 2005, the Court issued a separate order denying Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice; 

WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants on all 

claims in the Main Securities Class Action; 

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2007, the Court in this action entered a Minute Order 

providing that if this action is not dismissed, the Court will set a date for the defendants to file a 

renewed motion to dismiss; 

WHEREAS, the plaintiff in this action desires to amend his complaint again; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that it will conserve the resources of the Court and the 

parties and promote efficiency to allow amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that all discovery and all deadlines apart from those listed 

below shall remain stayed until such time, if any, that the Court determines that the plaintiff has 

satisfied the applicable pleading standards. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties in this action, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a) and through their counsel of record, that: 

1. Plaintiff agrees to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, effective 

upon the filing of a Second Amended Complaint; 

2. Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint on or before May 9, 2008; 

Case 4:02-cv-02020-CW Document 81 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPL. AND SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 02-2020 CW 

sf-2502013 

2

3. Upon the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, the First Amended Complaint shall 

be deemed dismissed without prejudice; 

4. The defendants will move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Second Amended 

Complaint on or before June 20, 2008; 

5. If the defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff shall 

have until August 1, 2008, to oppose that motion; 

6. If the plaintiff opposes the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the defendants shall have 

until August 22, 2008, to file a reply; 

7. The hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss (if any) shall occur on September 4, 

2008, or such other time thereafter that is set by the Court; and 

8. All discovery and all case deadlines apart from those listed above shall remain stayed 

until such time, if any, that the Court determines that the plaintiff has satisfied the 

applicable pleading standards. 

Dated: April 22, 2008 JORDAN ETH 

TERRI GARLAND 

PHILIP T. BESIROF 

RAYMOND M. HASU 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

By: /s/ Terri Garland _______

 Terri Garland 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant JDS Uniphase 

Corporation and Individual Defendants Jozef Straus, 

Don Scifres, Martin A. Kaplan, Bruce D. Day, 

Robert E. Enos, Peter A. Guglielmi, John A. 

MacNaughton, Wilson Sibbett, Anthony R. Muller, 

M. Zita Cobb, Joseph Ip, Charles J. Abbe, 

Frederick L. Leonberger, Michael C. Phillips, and 

Harry Deffebach 

Case 4:02-cv-02020-CW Document 81 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPL. AND SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 02-2020 CW 

sf-2502013 

3

RICHARD JOHNS 

KIPPERMAN & JOHNS 

RICHARD B. BRUALDI 

GAITRI BRUALDI 

AYESHA ONYEKWELU 

THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C. 

SCOTT W. FISHER 

GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 

By: /s/ Richard B. Brualdi 

Richard B. Brualdi 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

* * * 

ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Case Management 

Conference remains on calendar May 6, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. with related cases. 

HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:02-cv-02020-CW Document 81 Filed 04/23/08 Page 4 of 5
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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDMENT OF COMPL. AND SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 02-2020 CW 

sf-2502013 

4

I, Raymond M. Hasu, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Amendment of Complaint and Scheduling. In compliance 

with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Terri Garland, attorney for Defendants, and 

Richard B. Brualdi, attorney for Plaintiffs, have concurred in this filing. 

Dated: April 22, 2008 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

By: /s/ Raymond M. Hasu 

Raymond M. Hasu 

Attorney for Defendants 

Case 4:02-cv-02020-CW Document 81 Filed 04/23/08 Page 5 of 5