Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00892/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00892-0/pdf.json

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order.DOC - 1 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Defendants’ 

Response to Derivative Complaint 

Case No. C-07-0892-BZ

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

WALTER J. ROBINSON #40632 

LAWRENCE L. HOENIG # 68337 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 233-4500 

Facsimile: (650) 233-4545 

Email: walter.robinson@pillsburylaw.com

lhoenig@pillsburylaw.com 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 

ANDREW D. LANPHERE #191479 

C.J. MARTIN #228630 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

Telephone: (415) 983-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 

Email: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com 

andrew.lanphere@pillsburylaw.com 

cj.martin@pillsburylaw.com 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ALFRED E. RONCONI, Derivatively on 

behalf of MARVELL TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEHAT SUTARDJA, et al. 

Defendants, 

-- and -- 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, 

LTD., 

Nominal Defendant. 

 Case No. C-07-0892-BZ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 

DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00892-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 4
 Case 5:07-cv-00892-RMW Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order.DOC - 2 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Defendants’ 

Response to Derivative Complaint 

Case No. C-07-0892-BZ

RECITALS 

 WHEREAS, plaintiff filed this derivative action on February 12, 2007; 

 WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, nominal defendant Marvell Technology Group, 

Ltd. (“Marvell”) filed a Notice of Filing of Case that Should Be Consolidated with In re 

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. [Dkt. 5], in which Marvell noted that this action concerns 

the same allegations and claims as those made in In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 

Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-06-03894-RMW(RS), and, accordingly, should be 

consolidated with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation; 

 WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a Notice of Opposition to 

Marvell’s Notice of Filing of Case that Should Be Consolidated with In re Marvell 

Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation [Dkt. 6], in which plaintiff stated that he 

intends to file a motion resisting consolidation of this action with In re Marvell Technology 

Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation; and 

WHEREAS, the undersigned counsel agree that the interests of justice and judicial 

economy would be served by an order continuing the date by which the defendants must 

respond to the complaint filed in this action until after the Court has decided whether this 

action will be consolidated with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation.

STIPULATION 

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate that each defendant 

shall not be required to respond to the complaint filed in this action until 45 days after the 

Court decides whether this action will be consolidated with In re Marvell Technology 

Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, or 45 days after the defendant is served with the 

complaint filed in this action, whichever is later. 

Case 3:07-cv-00892-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 4
 Case 5:07-cv-00892-RMW Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order.DOC - 3 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Defendants’ 

Response to Derivative Complaint 

Case No. C-07-0892-BZ

 Dated: March 8, 2007 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

RICHARD M. HEIMANN 

JOY A. KRUSE 

BRUCE W. LEPPLA 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC 

RICHARD D. GREENFIELD 

7426 Tour Drive 

Easton, MD 21601 

By [Concurrence obtained per Gen. Order 45]

Joy A. Kruse 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 I, Andrew Lanphere, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file 

this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby 

attest that plaintiffs’ counsel Joy A. Kruse has concurred in this filing. 

 Dated: March 8, 2007 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

WALTER J. ROBINSON 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

BRUCE A. ERICSON 

ANDREW D. LANPHERE 

C.J. MARTIN 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

By /s/ Andrew D. Lanphere 

Andrew D. Lanphere 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD 

Case 3:07-cv-00892-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 4
 Case 5:07-cv-00892-RMW Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order.DOC - 4 - Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Defendants’ 

Response to Derivative Complaint 

Case No. C-07-0892-BZ

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each defendant shall not be required to respond 

to the complaint filed in this action until 45 days after the Court decides whether this 

action will be consolidated with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative 

Litigation, or 45 days after the defendant is served with the complaint filed in this action, 

whichever is later.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March __, 2007. 

__________________________________________

 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00892-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 4

12 Magistrate , Bernard Zimmerman

Case 5:07-cv-00892-RMW Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 4