1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

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 

Rosemary M. Rivas (State Bar No. 209147) 

Email: rrivas@zlk.com 

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 291-2420 

Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak

[Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

BRIAN CLEVLEN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

PAUL F. TRUEX, CRAIG THOMPSON, 

MAY LIU and WILLIAM SHANAHAN,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 

 
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

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 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2 and 7-12, Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak (“Plaintiff”) and 

defendants Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Paul F. Truex, Craig Thompson, May Liu, and William 

Shanahan (“Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to set the pleading and briefing schedule in the 

above-captioned action. 

WHEREAS, on February 13, 2017, Brian Clevlen filed a complaint captioned Brian Clevlen 

v. Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Paul F. Truex, Craig Thompson, May Liu, and William 

Shanahan, No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS (the “Action”), a purported class action under the Private 

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”) alleging violations of the federal 

securities laws; 

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2017, the Court entered an order (Dkt. No. 14) approving the 

Parties’ joint stipulation extending Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint, vacating the Order 

Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines entered by the Court on February 

14, 2017 (Dkt. No. 4), continuing all dates and deadlines pending disposition on Defendants’ 

anticipated motion(s) to dismiss, and ordering that the Initial Case Management Conference shall 

be held thirty (30) days after an order directing Defendants to file an answer (if any), or as soon 

as possible thereafter consistent with the Court’s schedule; 

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2017, pursuant to the PSLRA, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 

Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel (Dkt. No. 16); 

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2017, the Court entered an order (Dkt. No. 21) appointing Plaintiff 

as lead plaintiff; and approving Plaintiff’s selection of Levi & Korsinsky LLP as lead counsel; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties continue to believe that, because the PSLRA stays all discovery, 

including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions to dismiss in securities actions such 

as this one, it is appropriate to defer the initial case management conference and the completion of 

initial disclosures until the lead plaintiff has filed a consolidated amended complaint, Defendants 

have had the opportunity to file any motion to dismiss, and the Court has ruled on Defendants’

anticipated motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 328-

29 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)’s initial disclosure requirements are disclosures 
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

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 

or other proceedings for purposes of PSLRA’s stay provision, and must be stayed pending 

disposition of motion to dismiss); 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s approval, as 

follows: 

1. Defendants need not answer, move against or otherwise respond to the complaint in 

the Action until Plaintiff files or designates an operative complaint; 

2. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint, which will function as the operative 

complaint, or designate an existing complaint as the operative complaint, on or before July 17, 

2017; 

3. Defendants shall answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the operative 

complaint on or before September 15, 2017; 

4. If Defendants move to dismiss the operative complaint, Plaintiff shall file any 

opposition papers on or before November 15, 2017; 

5. If Plaintiff files opposition papers, Defendants shall file any reply papers on or 

before December 15, 2017; 

6. This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim 

relief; 

7. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’ 

rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would otherwise 

have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses; and 

8. The Parties do not seek to stipulate to the foregoing schedule for the purpose of 

delay, and the proposed dates will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as the Court 

has yet to schedule these dates. 

/ / / 

/ / / 
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

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 

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court issue an order granting the 

Parties’ request to set a pleading and briefing schedule and related deadlines as set forth herein. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 1, 2017 LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

 

 By: /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas 

Rosemary M. Rivas 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 291-2420 

Fax: (415) 484-1294 

Shannon L. Hopkins (to be admitted pro hac vice)

Stephanie A. Bartone (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 

733 Summer Street, Suite 304 

Stamford, CT 06901 

Tel: (203) 992-4523 

Fax: (212) 363-7171 

Email: shopkins@zlk.com 

Email: sbartone@zlk.com 

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak

Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660) 

mjones@goodwinlaw.com 

Lloyd Winawer (SBN 157823) 

lwinawer@goodwinlaw.com 

Nicholas A. Reider (SBN 296440) 

nreider@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1105 

Tel.: (650) 752-3100 

Fax: (650) 853-1038 

Counsel for Defendants 

FILER’S ATTESTATION

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1 regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that 

the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories. 

 /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas 

 Rosemary M. Rivas 
5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING PLEADING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS 

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 

* * * 

O R D E R 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: , 2017 

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

6/5