Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02047/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carleton Fiorina
Defendant
Georgianna Hanrahan
Plaintiff
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE RE MOT. TO DISMISS

C-05-02047 CRB 

STEVEN M. SCHATZ, State Bar No. 118356 

IGNACIO E. SALCEDA, State Bar No. 164017 

CHERYL W. FOUNG, State Bar No. 108868 

KELLEY E. MOOHR, State Bar No. 216823 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: kmoohr@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY AND 

CARLETON FIORINA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

GEORGIANNA HANRAHAN, IRA, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY and 

CARLETON FIORINA 

Defendants 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C05-2047 CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE RE MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

Case 3:05-cv-02047-CRB Document 66 Filed 04/18/06 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 

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE RE MOT. TO DISMISS

C-05-02047 CRB 

-1- 

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff Georgianna Hanrahan IRA’s 

(“Lead Plaintiff”) motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, and approved Shapiro Haber & Urmy 

LLP as Lead Plaintiff’s counsel; 

 WHEREAS, on March 24, 2006, the Court set a hearing date for Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss for June 16, 2006 at 10:00 A.M.; 

 WHEREAS, on April 7, 2006, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint 

(“Amended Complaint”); 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred on a schedule for briefing Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, 

subject to approval of the Court, that the briefing schedule for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

will be: 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Due: April 28, 2006 

Plaintiff’s Opposition Due: May 19, 2006 

Defendants’ Reply Due: June 2, 2006 

Per the Court’s Order, the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall take place on 

June 16, 2006 at 10:00 A.M. 

Dated: April 18, 2006 SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 

By: /s/Edward F. Haber _____ 

 Edward F. Haber 

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff 

Dated: April 18, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 

By: /s/Ignacio E. Salceda 

 Ignacio E. Salceda 

Attorneys for Defendants 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________ By: 

 THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER T

United States District Judge 

April 18, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-02047-CRB Document 66 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2