Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00262-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case Number C 10-262 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION, ETC.

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 5/21/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEVEN SIMON, MICHAEL KALLOCK AND

ALEXEY TERSKIKH, on Behalf of Himself and

All Others Similarly Situated,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ERIC STANG, LEN DEBENEDICTIS, HANK

GAUTHIER, and RELIANT TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-00262 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) GRANTING 1

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR

CONSIDERATION AND (2)

SETTING A FURTHER BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

[re doc. no. 11]

Plaintiffs Steven Simon, Michael Kallok, and Alexey Terskikh (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) filed this putative class action in the Santa Clara Superior Court on December 12,

2009. Pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15

U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb, Defendants removed the action to this Court. Plaintiffs moved for

remand, and Defendants moved to dismiss. On April 12, the Court concluded that some of

Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by SLUSA and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Case 5:10-cv-00262-JF Document 28 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Case Number C 10-262 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION, ETC.

(JFEX1)

the complaint. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend to avoid inadvertently pled federal claims. 

The Court deferred the determination on Plaintiffs’ motion for remand, pending Plaintiffs’

amendment.

On May 5, 2010, Plaintiffs requested consideration of their motion for remand and

provided a copy of the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ request for consideration of their

motion for remand is granted. If Defendants desire to file an updated opposition to Plaintiffs’

motion for remand, it must be filed no later than May 28, 2010. Plaintiffs’ reply to Defendants’

opposition is to be filed no later than June 4, 2010. The parties are directed solely to address the

remand issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: 5/21/ 2010 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00262-JF Document 28 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2