If I was a betting man I'd bet there are thousands of cases where dismal came much more sooner in lawsuits. Perhaps research this particular judge's response time on similar suits.
I wouldn't sweat the small stuff cause first we need P to succeed, then favorable interim B OM results, start of B trial, then uplist.
Then you will probably totally forget this frivolous BS lawsuit.
A few more examples for timing purposes One more time......Obviously not all class actions are the same (facts, lawyering skills and judicial temperament being some obvious differences).
Kuyat v. BioMimetic 11/28/11 amended complaint 2/27/12 motion to dismiss 8/28/12 motion granted
5/1/13 Notice of appeal 3/28/14 Judgment affirmed
Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, 4/15/11 amended complaint 5/23/11 motion to dismiss 8/10/11 motion granted BUT…plaintiff was allowed to file an amended complaint
9/12/11 amended complaint 10/13/11 motion to dismiss 5/22/12 motion granted
6/20/12 Notice of Appeal 7/16/14 Judgment affirmed
SCHWARTZ v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. et al 3/10/14 amended complaint 5/9/14 motion to dismiss 5/4/15 motion denied
Menaldi v OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC 11/24/14 amended complaint 3/16/15 motion(s) to dismiss 2/17/16 “In an opinion today, Judge Oetken allowed portions of securities class action against the asset management firm Och-Ziff Capital Management to proceed past a motion to dismiss.” http://securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1052/OZCMG00_01/2016217_r01x_14CV03251.pdf 0Note: PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT: Pomerantz LLP (New York) 600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016 212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/ The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York) 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016 (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827