Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06699/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06699-2/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 

[] ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARVIN STEGER, Derivatively on 

Behalf or Nominal Defendant MIPS 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN E. BOURGOIN, et al., 

Defendants, 

 - and - 

MIPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

[] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, TO 

APPOINT JOSEPH CARCO AS LEAD 

PLAINTIFF AND TO APPOINT LERACH 

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & 

ROBBINS LLP AS LEAD COUNSEL

[Caption continued on following page.] 

*E-FILED - 4/12/07*

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

JOSEPH CARCO, Derivatively on Behalf 

of MIPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ANTHONY B. HOLBROOK, et al., 

Defendants, 

 - and - 

MIPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a Delaware 

corporation, 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-07-00661-RMW 

LEO MICHAELS, Derivatively on Behalf 

of Nominal Defendant MIPS 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN E BOURGOIN, et al., 

Defendants, 

 - and - 

MIPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-07-00771-RMW 

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

-1- Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

Plaintiff Joseph Carco’s Motion to Consolidate Actions and to Appoint Joseph Carco as 

Lead Plaintiff and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel (the 

“Motion”) came on for hearing in the ordinary course. Having considered the papers submitted in 

support of and in response to the Motion, the argument of counsel, if any, and for good cause 

shown, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

I. CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS 

1. The following actions are hereby consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial 

proceedings, trial and appeal: 

Abbreviated Case Name Case Number 

Steger v. Bourgoin, et al. C-06-06699-RMW 

Carco v. Holbrook, et al. C-07-00661-RMW 

Michaels v. Bourgoin, et al. C-07-00771 -RMW 

2. The caption of these consolidated actions shall be “In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. 

Derivative Litigation” and the files of these consolidated actions shall be maintained in one file 

under Master File No. C-06-06699-RMW. Any other actions now pending or later filed in this 

Court which arise out of or are related to the same facts as alleged in the above-identified cases 

shall be consolidated for all purposes, if and when they are brought to the Court’s attention. 

3. Every pleading filed in the consolidated actions, or in any separate action included 

herein, shall bear the following caption: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

In re MIPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 

Master File No. C-06-06699-RMW 

This Document Relates To: 

4. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to all actions governed by this Order, 

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

-2- Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

the words “All Actions” shall appear immediately after the words “This Document Relates To:” 

in the caption set out above. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to only some, but not 

all, of the consolidated actions, this Court’s docket number for each individual action to which the 

pleading is intended to be applicable and the abbreviated case name of said action shall appear 

immediately after the words “This Document Relates To:” in the caption described above (e.g., 

“No. C-07-00661- RMW, Carco v. Holbrook, et al.”). 

5. A Master Docket and a Master File hereby are established for the above 

consolidated proceedings and for all other related cases filed in or transferred to this Court. 

Separate dockets shall continue to be maintained for each of the individual actions hereby 

consolidated, and entries shall be made in the docket of each individual case in accordance with 

the regular procedures of the clerk of this Court, except as modified by this Order. 

6. When a pleading is filed and the caption shows that it is applicable to “All 

Actions,” the clerk shall file such pleading in the Master File and note such filing on the Master 

Docket. No further copies need be filed, and no other docket entries need be made. 

7. When a pleading is filed and the caption shows that it is to be applicable to fewer 

than all of the consolidated actions, the clerk will file such pleading in the Master File only but 

shall docket such filing on the Master Docket and the docket of each applicable action. 

8. When a case which properly belongs as part of In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. 

Derivative Litigation is filed in this Court or transferred to this Court from another court and 

assigned to Judge Whyte, the clerk of this Court shall: 

(a) Place a copy of this Order in the separate file for such action; 

(b) Mail to the attorneys for the plaintiff(s) in the newly-filed or transferred 

case a copy of this Order and direct that this Order be served upon or mailed to any new 

defendant(s) or their counsel in the newly-filed or transferred case; and 

(c) Make an appropriate entry on the Master Docket. This Court requests the 

assistance of counsel in calling to the attention of the clerk of this Court the filing or transfer of 

any case which properly might be consolidated as part of In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. 

Derivative Litigation. 

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

-3- Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

II. APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD COUNSEL 

9. Plaintiff Joseph Carco shall be appointed Lead Plaintiff. 

10. The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP shall be 

appointed Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. 

Derivative Litigation. 

11. Lead Counsel shall have authority to speak for plaintiffs in matters regarding 

pretrial and trial procedure and settlement negotiations, and shall make all work assignments in 

such manner as to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of this litigation and to avoid 

duplicative or unproductive effort. 

12. Lead Counsel shall be responsible for coordination of all activities and 

appearances on behalf of plaintiffs and for the dissemination of notices and orders of this Court. 

No motion, request for discovery or other pretrial proceedings shall be initiated or filed by 

plaintiffs except through Lead Counsel. 

13. Lead Counsel also shall be available and responsible for communications to and 

from this Court. Lead Counsel shall be responsible for the creation and maintenance of a master 

service list of all parties and their respective counsel. 

14. Counsel for John E. Bourgoin, Jack Browne, Kenneth L. Coleman, Sandy 

Creighton, Kevin C. Eichler, Fred M. Gibbons, Robert R. Herb, Anthony B. Holbrook, Brad 

Holtzinger, Benjamin A. Horowitz, Mervin S. Kato, William M. Kelly, Lavi Lev, Derek Meyer, 

Kate Hunt Rundle, Esq., Mark Tyndall, G. Michael Uhler, and nominal defendant MIPS 

Technologies, Inc. (“MIPS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) may rely upon all agreements made 

with Lead Counsel, or other duly authorized representatives of plaintiffs, and such agreements 

shall be binding on plaintiffs. 

III. SCHEDULE 

15. Lead Plaintiff shall no later than 45 days from the entry of this Order file and serve 

a Consolidated Complaint which will supersede all existing complaints filed in these actions. 

Defendants need not respond to any of the pre-existing complaints. Service, pursuant to Rule 4 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of any of the pre-existing complaints on any of the 

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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 GRANTING MOTION 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

-4- Case No. C-06-06699-RMW 

Defendants, or their counsel, shall constitute sufficient service on that Defendant. Service of the 

Consolidated Complaint shall be effected with respect to any of the Defendants by serving the 

Consolidated Complaint on Defendants’ counsel. 

16. MIPS shall file a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on the ground that 

Lead Plaintiff lacks standing to sue on behalf of MIPS (“Standing Motion”) no later than 45 days 

from the date of service of the Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiff shall file and serve his 

opposition within 45 days after the service of the Standing Motion. If MIPS files and serves a 

reply to Lead Plaintiff’s opposition, it shall do so within 21 days after service of the opposition. 

17. Other than as set forth above in ¶16, Defendants need not respond to the 

Consolidated Complaint until resolution of the Standing Motion. Following the Court’s ruling on 

the Standing Motion, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for any necessary 

responses to or motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on the underlying merits of the 

claim. 

18. Discovery is stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ Standing 

Motion. 

19. The parties agree that discovery shall proceed once the Court denies the Standing 

Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4/12/07

Case 5:06-cv-06699-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 6