Staublein v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to withdraw an order for an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference and vacate associated deadlines based on the discovery stay mandated by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The court granted the motion, vacated the ENE conference and deadlines, and ordered the parties to reschedule them after the court rules on the defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Withdraw Notice and Order for Early Neutral Evaluation Conference granted“Based on the parties’ representations, the Joint Motion (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the PSLRA's mandatory stay provision, which stays all discovery and other proceedings during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. The court relied on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (SG Cowen) and persuasive district court authority (In re Firstenergy) to extend the stay to the ENE conference, which is a form of 'other proceeding,' given the defendants' clear intent to file a motion to dismiss. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
August 19, 2020 Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, and all associated dates and deadlines, vacated“The August 19, 2020 Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, and all associated dates and deadlines, are VACATED.” | agree with court Vacating the conference is a logical consequence of granting the motion to withdraw the ENE order due to the PSLRA stay. The court properly deferred the scheduling until after the motion to dismiss is resolved, consistent with the statutory requirement that the stay remains in effect until the court determines the legal sufficiency of the complaint. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the PSLRA's mandatory stay. It cites the correct statutory provision and binding Ninth Circuit precedent to support the extension of the stay to the ENE conference. The reliance on In re Firstenergy is appropriate for the specific factual scenario where the motion to dismiss is pending but not yet filed. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the parties' joint request.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 Case No.: 18-cv-01647-AJB-BGS 9 IN RE ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS ORDER VACATING AUGUST 19, 10 INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 2020 EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE, 11 CASE MANAGEMENT 12 CONFERENCE, & RELATED DATES 13 14 [ECF NO. 75] 15 16 On July 15, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw Notice and Order for 17 Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) Conference. (ECF No. 75.) The parties indicate that 18 Plaintiff will file his Second Amended Complaint by July 16, 2020 and that Defendants 19 will subsequently file a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 2.) 20 The parties request the Court to withdraw its ENE Order (ECF No. 68) and vacate all 21 associated deadlines, including taking the August 19, 2020 ENE Conference off calendar. 22 (ECF No. 75 at 2.) 23 The parties’ request is based on the mandatory stay of discovery implemented by the 24 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). (Id.) The PSLRA requires “all 25 discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to 26 dismiss, unless the court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery 27 is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” 15 U.S.C. 28 1 || § 78u-4(b)(3)(B); See also SG Cowen Sec. Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of CA, 189 2 909, 911 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 Even though a Motion to Dismiss has not been filed yet in this case, the Court still 4 that the PSLRA’s discovery stay provision applies based on Defendants 5 || representation that they intend to do so once Plaintiff files his Second Amended Complaint. 6 || Jn re Firstenergy Corp. Sec. Litig., 229 F.R.D. 541, 543-44 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (finding that 7 || the PSLRA’s discovery stay provision applied despite no pending motion to dismiss, where 8 ||defendant informed that court of its intent to do so once Plaintiff filed its consolidated 9 ||complaint). The Court finds that the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management 10 || Conference, along with all associated deadlines, should not be held until “after the court 11 sustained the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” See SG Cowen Sec. Corp., 189 F.3d 12 |/at 913 (citing S.Rep. No. 104—98, at 14 (1995)) (indicating that before lifting the stay of 13 || discovery, the PSLRA requires the court to first determine whether the complaint has 14 || satisfied the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard or if dismissal is appropriate). 15 Based on the parties’ representations, the Joint Motion (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED. 16 || The August 19, 2020 Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, and all 17 || associated dates and deadlines, are VACATED. The parties are to JOINTLY contact the 18 chambers of Judge Skomal at (619) 557-2993 to reschedule the Early Neutral Evaluation 19 || and Case Management Conference within three (3) court days of Judge Battaglia’s issuance 20 an order on Defendants’ forthcoming Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended 21 ||Complaint. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: July 16, 2020 7 2 p / / 24 on. Bernard G. Skomal 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28