Hsu v. PubMatic, Inc. — Entry #56: STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - CORRECTION OF DOCKET 52…
Case: Hsu v. PubMatic, Inc. cand · 3:25-cv-07067
filed August 20, 2025
What this document is
Docket entry #56 · filed September 08, 2026
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - CORRECTION OF DOCKET 52 filed by Rajeev K. Goel, Steven Pantelick, PubMatic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jessica Valenzuela in Support of Stipulated Request and Proposed Order Setting Briefing Schedule)(Valenzuela, Jessica) (Filed on 9/8/2026) (Entered: 09/08/2026)
Who is involved
- PubMatic, Inc.
- Rajeev K. Goel
- Sidney Hsu
- Steven Pantelick
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Applied Digital: its former name “FLIGHT SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES INC” appears in a filing in this case.
…Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million. • Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1…
- Core Scientific: its name “Core Scientific, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…Rosen Lead Counsel. Pang v. Levitt (Core Scientific, Inc.), No. 22-CV-1191-LY (W.D. Tex.). Rosen…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 19, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
5 page(s), 12,464 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 3:25-cv-07067-JSC Document 56 Filed 09/08/26 Page 1 of 5
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Jessica Valenzuela, Bar No. 220934
2 [email protected]
Jeff Lombard, Bar No. 285371
3 [email protected]
310 University Avenue
4 Palo Alto, California 94301-1744
Telephone: 650.849.5300
5 Facsimile: 650.849.5333
6 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Jordan Estes (pro hac vice)
7 [email protected]
200 Park Avenue
8 New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: 212.351.4000
9 Facsimile: 212.351.4035
10 Attorneys for PubMatic, Inc., Rajeev K. Goel, and
Steven Pantelick
11
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SIDNEY HSU, Individually and on Behalf of Case No. 3:25-cv-07067-JSC
15 All Others Similarly Situated,
STIPULATED REQUEST AND
16 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
17 v. DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED
MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND
18 PUBMATIC, INC., RAJEEV K. GOEL, and AMENDED COMPLAINT
STEVEN PANTELICK,
19 Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
Defendants. Date Action Filed: August 20, 2025
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP
STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:25-CV-07067-JSC
Case 3:25-cv-07067-JSC Document 56 Filed 09/08/26 Page 2 of 5
1 Pursuant to Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the Northern District of California Civil Local
2 Rules, Plaintiff Sidney Hsu (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants PubMatic, Inc. (“PubMatic”),
3 Rajeev K. Goel, and Steven Pantelick (“Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, the
4 “Parties”), hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists to request an order from the
5 Court setting the schedule for Defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint
6 (defined below) and for briefing on Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
7 WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint
8 against Defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
9 Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the “Complaint”);
10 WHEREAS, this action is governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
11 of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), which imposes an automatic stay of discovery during the pendency
12 of a motion to dismiss (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B));
13 WHEREAS, on October 25, 2025, the Court appointed Sidney Hsu as Lead Plaintiff
14 and Glancy Prongay & Murray (now known as Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP) as
15 Lead Counsel pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B) (Dkt. 31);
16 WHEREAS, on February 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action
17 Complaint (Dkt. 38) (the “First Amended Complaint”);
18 WHEREAS, on April 10, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended
19 Complaint (Dkt. 39);
20 WHEREAS, on July 27, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
21 First Amended Complaint with leave to amend and ordered Plaintiff to file any further
22 amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) by September 4, 2026 (Dkt. 48);
23 WHEREAS, the Parties believe that, given the requirements of the PSLRA and in
24 order to conserve the Court’s and the Parties’ resources, good cause exists to set the
25 schedule below, which affords Defendants a reasonable opportunity to evaluate and respond
26
27
2
28 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
GIBSON, DUNN &
ON DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED
CRUTCHER LLP COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:25-CV-07067-JSC
Case 3:25-cv-07067-JSC Document 56 Filed 09/08/26 Page 3 of 5
1 to the Second Amended Complaint and affords Plaintiff a comparable period in which to
2 oppose any motion to dismiss.
3 WHEREAS, the previous time modifications in this action are: (1) the Court’s
4 October 15, 2025 Order (Dkt. 14) extending Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint
5 and vacating the Initial Case Management Conference, all associated deadlines, and the
6 ADR deadlines; and (2) the Court’s December 11, 2025 Order (Dkt. 35) setting the schedule
7 for filing of the First Amended Complaint and responsive briefing;
8 WHEREAS, the Parties do not seek to reset these dates for the purpose of delay,
9 and the proposed new dates will not have an effect on any additional pre-trial and trial dates
10 as the Court has yet to schedule these dates.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, subject to approval of the Court, hereby stipulate
12 and agree as follows:
13 1. Defendants shall answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Second
14 Amended Complaint on or before October 20, 2026.
15 2. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before
16 December 4, 2026.
17 3. Defendants shall file any reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before
18 January 19, 2027.
19 4. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of the Parties’
20 rights or positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any claims or defenses that the Parties
21 otherwise would have.
22 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
23
24
25
26
27
3
28 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
GIBSON, DUNN &
ON DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED
CRUTCHER LLP COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CASE NO. 3:25-CV-07067-JSC
Case 3:25-cv-07067-JSC Document 56 Filed 09/08/26 Page 4 of 5
1 Respectfully submitted,
2 Dated: September 8, 2026 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3 By: /s/ Jessica Valenzuela
Jessica Valenzuela
4
Attorney for Defendant PubMatic, Inc., Rajeev
5 K. Goel, and Steven Pantelick
6 Dated: September 8, 2026 GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP
7 By: /s/ Ex Kano S. Sams II
Ex Kano S. Sams II
8
Attorney for Plaintiff Sidney Hsu
9
10 * * *
11 ECF ATTESTATION
12 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that the concurrence in the filing of this
13 document has been obtained from all other signatories.
14
Dated: September 8, 2026
15
/s/ Jessica Valenzuela
16 Jessica Valenzuela
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
28 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
GIBSON, DUNN &
ON DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED
CRUTCHER LLP COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CASE NO. 3:25-CV-07067-JSC
Case 3:25-cv-07067-JSC Document 56 Filed 09/08/26 Page 5 of 5
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated: ______________, 2026
4
5 Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
28 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
GIBSON, DUNN &
ON DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED
CRUTCHER LLP COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CASE NO. 3:25-CV-07067-JSC