DANIAL J. ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANDREW R. MUEHLBAUER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10161
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq. (pro hac vice)
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Marilyn Ezzes and Jeffrey A. Davies
Michael Gayan, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 11135)
Katrina Stark, Esq. (Nevada Bar No. 16006)
KEMP JONES, LLP
John C. Tang (pro hac vice pending)
Dennis F. Murphy, Jr. (pro hac vice pending)
JONES DAY
Counsel for Defendants Vintage Wine Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston
SCHEDULING STIPULATION
DANIAL J. ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, Marilyn Ezzes filed a class action complaint (ECF. No. 1) alleging claims against Defendants Vintage Wine Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherine DeVillers, and Kristina Johnston (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (the “PSLRA”);
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, the Court approved a stipulation stating that Defendants would not be required to answer or respond to the complaint (ECF No. 1), and that within fourteen (14) days of entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel in this Action, Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants shall meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule for the filing of a consolidated and/or amended complaint and for Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss (ECF No. 19);
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order appointing Marilyn Ezzes and Jeffrey A. Davies as Lead Plaintiffs and approved Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel (EFC. No. 22); and
WHEREAS, counsel for Lead Plaintiff and Defendants have conferred regarding a proposed schedule, with due consideration for the nature of the action, and hereby submit the following schedule;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel, and subject to Court approval, that:
1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint within 60 days after the Court enters an Order approving this stipulation.
2. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after Lead Plaintiffs file the consolidated complaint.
3. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss within 45 days after the motion to dismiss is filed; and Defendants shall file a reply to the opposition within 40 days after the opposition is filed.
A proposed order is filed herewith.
[PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER
Having considered the parties' Scheduling Stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint within 60 days after entry of this order.
2. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after Lead Plaintiffs file the consolidated complaint.
3. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss within 45 days after the motion to dismiss is filed; and Defendants shall file a reply to the opposition within 40 days after the opposition is filed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties' scheduling stipulation (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The parties' requests for 60 days from the date of this order for Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint and for 60 days after Lead Plaintiff files the complaint for Defendants to respond are granted. The parties' request for an extended briefing schedule for Defendants' possible motion to dismiss is denied. Counsel is advised that each request for relief must be contained in a separate motion or stipulation. See LR IC 2-2(b).