Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00241/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00241-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

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 

CHRISTOPHER H. MCGRATH (SB# 149129)

chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com

RAYMOND W. STOCKSTILL, IV (SB# 275228)

beaustockstill@paulhastings.com

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

695 Town Center Drive

Seventeenth Floor

Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924 

Telephone: 1(714) 668-6200 

Facsimile: 1(714) 979-1921 

EDWARD HAN (SB# 196924)

edwardhan@paulhastings.com

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

55 Second Street

Twenty-Fourth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Attorneys for Defendant Identiv, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN OSWALD, Derivatively on Behalf of 

Nominal Defendant IDENTIV, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

STEVEN HUMPHREYS, JASON HART, 

JAMES OUSLEY, GARY KREMEN, SAAD 

ALAZEM, DANIEL S. WENZEL, and BRIAN 

NELSON,

Defendants, 

and

IDENTIV, INC.,

Nominal Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00241-CRB

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS

Ctrm: 6, 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:16-cv-00241-CRB Document 15 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 5
- 1 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

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

Plaintiff Ryan Oswald (“Plaintiff”), Nominal Defendant Identiv, Inc. (“Identiv”) and 

defendants Brian Nelson and Jason Hart (collectively with Identiv, “Defendants”) by and through 

counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, this is a shareholder derivative action filed on January 14, 2016; 

WHEREAS, two other shareholder derivative actions have been filed in the Superior 

Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Chopra v. Hart, et al., Case No. RG16801379 (filed on January 24, 2016); Wollnik v. Wenzel, et al., Case No. RG-16803342 (filed on 

February 9, 2016) (“State Court Derivative Actions”); 

WHEREAS, this derivative action is related to a putative class action alleging violations 

of federal securities laws: Rok v. Identiv, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775-CRB (the “Securities Class 

Action”);

WHEREAS, on January 29, 2016, the Court granted a stipulation in the Securities Class 

Action extending the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint until 45 days after the 

court selects a lead plaintiff and said lead plaintiff files an amended complaint; 

WHEREAS, the hearing in the Securities Class Action on various motions for lead 

plaintiff is set for March 11, 2016;

WHEREAS, Defendants intend to seek stays of the State Court Derivative Actions; 

WHEREAS, based upon the circumstances unique to this case, and to avoid the 

unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources, the parties to this action have agreed, subject 

to this Court’s approval, to stay prosecution of this action, including motions practice and 

discovery; and

NOW, THEREFORE the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order as 

follows:

1. The case management conference set for March 11, 2016 is vacated. 

2. The Company shall respond to the complaint in this action within forty-five (45) 

days after the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in the Securities Class Action, 

plaintiff in this action shall either file an amended complaint or designate an existing complaint as 

Case 3:16-cv-00241-CRB Document 15 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 5
- 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

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 

operative. Thereafter, the Company, within forty-five (45) days, shall respond by way of either a 

motion to dismiss on the basis that demand is not excused, or a motion to stay this action until 

there is a resolution of the motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. In the event that a 

motion to stay this action is denied, the Company’s responsive pleading shall be due thirty (30) 

days after entry of an order denying the motion. The individual defendants in this action need not 

respond to the complaint unless and until there is a determination by this Court that demand is 

excused. 

3. All other proceedings, including motion practice and discovery, in this action are 

hereby stayed until further order of the Court.1 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 

Dated: March 3, 2016 ROBERT C. SCHUBERT

WILLEM F. JONCKHEER

SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP

By: /s/ Robert C. Schubert

ROBERT C. SCHUBERT

Robert I. Harwood

Matthew M. Houston

Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels

HARWOOD FEFFER LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan Oswald

 

1

 Defendants, however, reserve any and all rights in connection with this action and the 

State Court Derivate Actions, including, but not limited to, seeking stays and/or consolidation of 

those actions.

Case 3:16-cv-00241-CRB Document 15 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 5
- 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

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 

DATED: March 3, 2016 CHRISTOPHER H. McGRATH

EDWARD HAN

RAYMOND W. STOCKSTILL, IV

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

By: /s/ Christopher H. McGrath

CHRISTOPHER H. McGRATH

Attorneys for Defendant Identiv, Inc.

DATED: March 3, 2016 ROBERT P. VARIAN

ORRICK, HERRINGTON &

 SUTCLIFFE LLP

By: /s/ Robert P. Varian

ROBERT P. VARIAN

Attorneys for Defendant Jason Hart

DATED: March 3_, 2016 JONATHAN GASKIN

KAUFHOLD GASKIN LLP

By: /s/ Jonathan Gaskin

JONATHAN GASKIN

Attorneys for Defendant Brian Nelson

DECLARATION REGARDING CONCURRENCE

I, Christopher H. McGrath, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being 

used to file the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS. In 

compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Robert C. Schubert, Robert P. Varian 

and Jonathan Gaskin have concurred in this filing.

 /s/ Christopher H. McGrath 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-00241-CRB Document 15 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 5
- 4 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

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 

* * *ORDER* * *

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 

 HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

LEGAL_US_W # 85094259.5

Case 3:16-cv-00241-CRB Document 15 Filed 03/08/16 Page 5 of 5