Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re CV Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 2, 2019

IN RE CV SCIENCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

          Richard Gonnello Martin A. Muckleroy MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, as Trustee for the Ina Family Trust and Lead Counsel for the Class

          Eric Plourde Terry A. Coffing S. Todd Neal (pro hac vice) PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP Attorneys for Defendants CV Sciences, Inc., Michael Mona, Jr., Joseph D. Dowling, Michael Mona, III

          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING ORDER

          BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES (DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE) JUDGE.

         THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS:

On November 28, 2018, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order Extending Time to Respond to Complaint (Dkt. No. 25), pursuant to which the Court ordered that Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust (“Lead Plaintiff”) file his consolidated amended complaint by January 4, 2019; that Defendants CV Sciences, Inc., Michael Mona, Jr., Joseph D. Dowling, and Michael Mona, III (“Defendants”) file their motion to dismiss by March 5, 2019; that Lead Plaintiff file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss by May 3, 2019; and that Defendants file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss by June 3, 2019.

         On January 4, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 30). On March 5, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33) and related papers (Dkt. Nos. 34 and 35). Pursuant to the Court's Order (Dkt. No. 25), Lead Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss must be filed by May 3, 2019.

         On April 25, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen issued an Order (Dkt. No. 39) (the “Scheduling Order”). The Scheduling Order set forth that “Pursuant to LR 26-1, the parties were required to meet and/or confer as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) within thirty days after the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared, and fourteen days thereafter to file a mandatory stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order. To date, the parties have not complied.” Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 39, p. 1. The Scheduling Order set forth various discovery deadlines to govern this matter, including a requirement that the parties meet and confer no later than May 9, 2019 and complete discovery by September 2, 2019.

         This matter is a securities fraud case subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). The PSLRA requires that “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court finds, upon the motion of any party, that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B) (emphasis added). “[T]he Ninth Circuit has interpreted the automatic stay on all discovery under the PSLRA as applying not only when a motion to dismiss is pending, but from the filing of the case until such time that ‘the court has sustained the legal sufficiency of the complaint.'” In re Am. Funds Sec. Litig., 493 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citing SG Cowen Securities Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 189 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 1999)).

         In the present matter, there is no dispute that the PSLRA governs. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 5, 2019 (Dkt. No. 33). Therefore, all discovery in this matter has been automatically stayed pursuant to the PSLRA, including any requirements set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and/or Local Rule 26-1. Lead Plaintiff has not moved to lift the stay of discovery. Therefore, the automatic stay remains in effect.

         FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

         WHEREAS, this matter is subject to the provisions of the PSLRA;

         WHEREAS, Defendants have filed their Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending;

         WHEREAS, the Court entered the Scheduling Order on April 25, 2019 (Dkt. No. 39), setting forth a discovery plan and scheduling order dates that inter alia shall apply to discovery in this matter;

         WHEREAS, the discovery contemplated in the Scheduling Order is subject to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.