Skip to main content

Nevada Cases October 11, 2022: Luo v. Spectrum Pharm.

Up to Nevada Cases

Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
Date: Oct. 11, 2022

Case Description

1

JOSE CHUNG LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOSEPH W. TURGEON, KURT A. GUSTAFSON, FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, M.D., and THOMAS J. RIGA, Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01612-CDS-BNW

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 11, 2022

CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS J. Colby Williams (NV Bar No. 5549) Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ryan A. Llorens (admitted pro hac vice) Jeffrey J. Stein (admitted pro hac vice) John M. Kelley (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Lead Plaintiff International Trading Group, Inc.

PISANELLI BICE PLLC Jordan T. Smith (NV Bar No. 12097) Counsel for Defendant Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

PAUL HASTINGS LLP Christopher H. McGrath (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for All Defendants

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TO AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

HON. BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff International Trading Group, Inc. ("ITG") and Defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum"), Joseph W. Turgeon, Kurt A. Gustafson, Francois J. Lebel, M.D., and Thomas J. Riga (collectively, "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows and jointly request that the Court enter the below Order approving this Stipulation:

2

WHEREAS, in its October 4, 2022 Minute Order, the Court requested that the Parties' previously submitted Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order addressing Defendants' obligation to respond and related briefing on any motion to dismiss be bifurcated into separate applications and additional information be furnished in support of the requested scheduling relief (and a separate stipulation and proposed order for related briefing will be submitted to the District Judge for approval);

WHEREAS, the Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("CAC") was filed by Plaintiff Jose Chung Luo in this action on August 31, 2021;

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2022, counsel for Luo and Defendants submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying the Deadline to Answer the Complaint pending the outcome of the pending Lead Plaintiff motions. As part of that Stipulation and Proposed Order, counsel for Luo and Defendants agreed that, upon appointment, the Lead Plaintiff selected by the Court would have 60 days to file an amended complaint and in turn, Defendants would have a comparable 60 days to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, in part because it was anticipated that the amended complaint would substantially differ from the Luo complaint.

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2022 the Stipulation and Proposed Order was granted in part by this Court staying the obligation of Defendants to answer and permitting the eventual Lead Plaintiff 60 days to file an amended complaint after appointment;

WHEREAS, after briefing by competing applicants, the Court appointed ITG Lead Plaintiff in its order dated July 28, 2022;

WHEREAS, consistent with the March 2, 2022 Stipulation and Order entered by the Court, Lead Plaintiff ITG filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("ACCAC") 60 days later on September 26, 2022. As anticipated, the ACCAC differs substantially from the Luo complaint. Among other differences, the ACCAC: (1) is brought by a new plaintiff, ITG; (2) the ACCAC is 52 pages, more than twice that of the Luo complaint; (3) the Luo complaint's allegations focused solely on Spectrum's drug candidate Rolontis, while the ACCAC has added allegations concerning an entirely different drug candidate, Poziotinib; (4) the ACCAC posits a different class period than the Luo complaint; and (5) the ACCAC has added an individual

3

defendant, Spectrum Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Riga, who was not named in the Luo complaint;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred, and agree that setting the response date of Defendants to the ACCAC on November 30, 2022 is appropriate for the foregoing reasons and consistent with the schedule previously agreed upon by counsel..

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT: Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the ACCAC on November 30, 2022.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the ACCAC on November 30, 2022.