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.

Lowinger v. Funko, Inc

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

February 22, 2018

ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
FUNKO, INC; BRIAN MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants.

          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P., T. DAVID COPLEY, WSBA #19378, JULI E. FARRIS, WSBA #17593, ELIZABETH A LELAND, WSBA #23433, OF COUNSEL STULL, STULL & BRODY, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ROBERT LOWINGER

          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Robin E. Wechkin, WSBA #24746, Attorneys for Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Piper Jaffray & Co.; Jefferies LLC; Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc

          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP, Stephen C. Willey, WSBA #24499, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Benjamin Naftalis, pro hac vice, Kevin McDonough, pro hac vice, Attorneys for Defendants Funko, Inc, Brian Mariotti; Russell Nickel; Ken, Brotman; Gino Dellomo; Charles Denson; Diane Irvine; Adam Kriger; and, Richard McNally

          STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND PENDING REMAND PROCEEDINGS

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Robert Lowinger (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this putative class action (the “Complaint”) in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger, and Richard McNally (collectively, the “Funko Defendants”); Goldman, Sachs & Co., now known as Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Piper Jaffray & Co.; Jefferies LLC; Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.; and John Does 1 Through 25 (collectively, the “Underwriter Defendants, ” and together with the Funko Defendants, the “Defendants”).

         2. The Complaint alleges only violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a, et seq.

         3. On February 7, 2018, the Funko Defendants removed this action to this Court.

         4. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Funko Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before February 14, 2018.

         5. Plaintiff intends to file a motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

         6. The Funko Defendants intend to file a motion to stay the proceedings pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 (argued Nov. 28, 2017) on the certified question of “[w]hether state courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over ‘covered class actions, ' 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933.”

         7. There have been no prior extensions of time for Defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this Court.

         8. The undersigned counsel is authorized to accept, and hereby does accept service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of the Underwriter Defendants, without prejudice and without waiver of any defenses, objections, or arguments in this matter or any other matter, including without limitation any arguments regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, except as to sufficiency of service of process of the Summons and Complaint.

         9. Subject to this Court's approval, the Defendants' time within which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended pending the Court's resolution of any motion to remand ...


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.