Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06441/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06441-0/pdf.json

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

---

700574432v1 

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 re 

Defendants’ Response to Complaint 

Case No. C-06-06441 SI 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

WALTER J. ROBINSON #40632 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 233-4500 

Facsimile: (650) 233-4545 

Email: walter.robinson@pillsburylaw.com

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 

ANDREW D. LANPHERE #191479 

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 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

C.J. MARTIN #228630 

501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 

San Diego, CA 92101-3575 

Tel: (619) 234-5000 

Fax: (619) 236-1995 

Email: cj.martin@pillsburylaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CARTER BRANTNER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., 

SEHAT SUTARDJA and GEORGE A. 

HERVEY,

Defendants. 

 Case No. C-06-06441-SI 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT 

Case 3:06-cv-06441-SI Document 26 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 5:06-cv-06441-RMW Document 30 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 4
700574432v1 - 2 - 

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 re 

Defendants’ Response to Complaint 

Case No. C-06-06441 SI 

RECITALS 

 WHEREAS plaintiffs filed this securities class action complaint on October 16, 

2006, Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”) alleging that defendants Marvell Techology Group Ltd., Sehat 

Sutardja and George A. Hervey (collectively, “Defendants”) engaged in certain conduct 

which allegedly violated federal securities laws and California law; 

WHEREAS other plaintiffs have filed three other securities class action complaints 

alleging much of the same conduct: (1) Harriet Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sehat Sutardja, Weili Dai, Pantas Sutardja, George A. 

Hervey, and Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Defendants, No. C-06-06286-RMW; (2) 

Timothy Mahrt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sehat 

Sutardja, Weili Dai, Pantas Sutardja, George A. Hervey and Marvell Technology Group, 

Ltd., Defendants, No. C-06-06731-SBA; and (3) Shawn M. Perry, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marvell Technology Group Ltd., Sehat 

Sutardja, Weili Dai, Pantas Sutardja and George A. Hervey, Defendants, No. C-06-07039-

JSW.

WHEREAS certain of the claims in this class action arise under the Private 

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; 

WHEREAS the undersigned counsel anticipate that a motion (or motions) will be 

filed to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and, if necessary, to consolidate any actions involving some 

or all of the same claims (e.g., motions under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)) and that, once lead 

plaintiffs are chosen, lead plaintiffs may wish to file a consolidated amended complaint; 

and 

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

economy would be served by an order enlarging Defendants’ time to respond to this 

Complaint and setting an agreed briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss the operative 

complaint. 

STIPULATION 

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate as follows: 

Case 3:06-cv-06441-SI Document 26 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 5:06-cv-06441-RMW Document 30 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 4
700574432v1 - 3 - 

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 re 

Defendants’ Response to Complaint 

Case No. C-06-06441 SI 

1. Lead Plaintiff(s) shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint or file a 

notice of election to proceed on the current complaint no later than 60 days from the date of 

entry of an order consolidating any actions involving some or all of the same claims against 

the same Defendants and/or appointing Lead Plaintiff(s) and Lead Counsel. 

2. Defendants shall have 60 days after the filing and service of the 

Consolidated Amended Complaint or Lead Plaintiffs’ election to proceed on the current 

complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. 

3. Lead Plaintiffs shall have 60 days to respond to any motion filed by 

Defendants in response to the operative complaint, unless otherwise agreed to by the 

parties. 

4. Defendants shall have 30 days after service of Lead Plaintiffs’ response to 

serve a reply, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. 

 Dated: December 4, 2006 BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & 

BIRKHAEUSER LLP 

ALAN R. PLUTZIK. 

L. TIMOTHY FISHER 

KATHRYN A. SCHOFIELD 

2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 

Fax: (925) 945-8792 

SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP 

MARC A. TOPAZ 

RICHARD A. MANISKAS 

ALISON K. CLARK 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

Fax: (610) 667-7056 

By [Concurrence obtained per Gen. Order 45]

Kathryn A. Schofield 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

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

file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with General Order 

45, X.B., I hereby attest that plaintiffs’ counsel Kathryn A. Schofield has concurred in this 

filing. 

Case 3:06-cv-06441-SI Document 26 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 5:06-cv-06441-RMW Document 30 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 4
700574432v1 - 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 re 

Defendants’ Response to Complaint 

Case No. C-06-06441 SI 

 Dated: December 8, 2006 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 

50 Fremont Street 

Post Office Box 7880 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

C.J. MARTIN 

501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 

San Diego, CA 92101-3575 

By /s/ Andrew D. Lanphere 

Andrew D. Lanphere 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December __, 2006. 

__________________________________________

 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:06-cv-06441-SI Document 26 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 4

subject & amendment by the Court to whom these cases are ultimately 

assigned.

Case 5:06-cv-06441-RMW Document 30 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 4