Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02398/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02398-0/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 TO EXTEND TIME

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02398-RS

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838

Email: nlocker@wsgr.com

JEROME F. BIRN, JR., State Bar No. 128561

Email: jbirn@wsgr.com

JONI OSTLER, State Bar No. 230009

Email: jostler@wsgr.com

NICHOLAS R. MILLER, State Bar No. 274243

Email: nmiller@wsgr.com

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,

Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RYAN HOFFMAN, Individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTREXON CORPORATION, RANDAL J.

KIRK, and RICK L. STERLING,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02398-RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:16-cv-02398-RS Document 18 Filed 06/29/16 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 TO EXTEND TIME -1-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02398-RS

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ryan Hoffman individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities

Laws (“Complaint”) against Intrexon Corporation (“Intrexon”) and certain of its current

executives, Randal J. Kirk and Rick L. Sterling (collectively, “Defendants”);

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, a substantively similar complaint with the caption Patrick

M. Gibrall et al. v. Intrexon et al. (Case No. 3:16-cv-02457-RS) (the “Gibrall Action”) was filed

with the Court;

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2016 Plaintiff Hoffman served Intrexon and Intrexon’s response

to the Complaint is currently due on July 5, 2016;

WHEREAS, this action is governed by the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 et seq., and the parties anticipate that the

Court will consolidate the Gibrall and Hoffman actions and will appoint a lead plaintiff, and that

the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint superseding previously filed

complaints, including the Complaint; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that efficiency for the Court and the parties in proceeding

under the PSLRA dictates that responding to the current Complaint should be deferred in light of

the foregoing.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the

respective parties hereto, that:

1. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, counsel for Defendants, has been

authorized to, and has, accepted service of the Summons and Complaint in this action on behalf

of Defendants Randal J. Kirk and Rick L. Sterling;

2. Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.

3. After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

Case 3:16-cv-02398-RS Document 18 Filed 06/29/16 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 TO EXTEND TIME -2-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02398-RS

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

plaintiff.

4. This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

relief.

5. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’

rights or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would

otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: June 29, 2016 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Joni Ostler

JONI OSTLER

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Email: nlocker@wsgr.com

jbirn@wsgr.com

jostler@wsgr.com

nmiller@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,

Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

DATED: June 29, 2016 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

/s/ Laurence M. Rosen

LAURENCE M. ROSEN, ESQ.

355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 785-2601

Facsimile (213) 226-4684

Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Case 3:16-cv-02398-RS Document 18 Filed 06/29/16 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 TO EXTEND TIME -3-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02398-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.

2. After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

plaintiff.

3. This Order is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

relief.

4. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’ rights

or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would otherwise

have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6/29/16

Case 3:16-cv-02398-RS Document 18 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 4