The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv03780 - Document 43 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER granting extension to answer (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2009)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Doc. 43 Filed10/05/09 Page1 of 6 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 PAGE R. BARNES, CA BAR NO. 154539 pbarnes@foley.com BILL J. SYMES, CA BAR NO. 257903 bsymes@foley.com FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 90 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016 TELEPHONE: 212.682.7474 FACSIMILE: 212.687.2329 OF COUNSEL BARRY J. MANDEL bmandel@foley.com KIMBERLY J. SHUR kshur@foley.com JONATHAN H. FRIEDMAN jfriedman@foley.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL ) LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; ) MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.; ) THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.; ) FITCH, INC.; AND FITCH RATINGS, LTD., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT COMPLAINT FILED: AUGUST 17, 2009 JUDGE: HON. SUSAN ILLSTON 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 1 Filed10/05/09 Page2 of 6 WHEREAS, on June 10, 2009, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 2 Litigation centralized four actions before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska in the Southern 3 District of New York, captioned In re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation, 1:08-cv- 4 3037-LAP; Community Trust Bank, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 1:09-cv- 5 5403-LAP; Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District, et al. v. Financial Guaranty Ins. Co., et al., 6 1:09-cv-5404-LAP; and The Cooperative Bank, et al., v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 7 Inc., 1:09-cv-5405-LAP (the “Centralized Actions”); 8 9 10 WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed in this Court its complaint (the “Complaint”) in the above-captioned action (the “Action”); WHEREAS, on September 2, 2009, Defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill 11 Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., filed a Notice of Tag-Along Action with the United States 12 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”), seeking to transfer the Action for 13 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the Centralized Actions currently pending 14 before Judge Preska in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; 15 WHEREAS, on September 16, 2009, the Clerk of the MDL Panel entered a Conditional 16 Transfer Order conditionally transferring the Action to Judge Preska in the Southern District of 17 New York; 18 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, on September 18, 2009, defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI”)1 filed a notice of opposition to the September 16, 2009 Conditional Transfer Order; WHEREAS, on September 21, 2009, the MDL Panel issued a stay of its September 16, 2009 Conditional Transfer Order pending the resolution of DBSI’s opposition; WHEREAS, on September 24, 2009, DBSI filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 1404(a) seeking to transfer the Action to the Southern District of New York, but not seeking 24 consolidation with the Centralized Actions (“DBSI’s Transfer Motion”); 25 WHEREAS the procedures applicable to the Centralized Actions, as enumerated in the 26 27 28 1 DBSI was omitted from the caption of the Complaint, but is nonetheless a defendant. See Compl. ¶ 12 (listing DBSI as a party). 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 Filed10/05/09 Page3 of 6 1 Stipulation and Revised Scheduling Order signed by Judge Preska on August 17, 2009 (attached 2 hereto as Exhibit A), require defendants to inform plaintiff by letter of what they believe to be 3 any deficiencies in the complaint before filing a motion to dismiss and allow plaintiff the 4 opportunity to amend the complaint after receiving the letter; 5 Now, therefore, the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby 6 STIPULATE, AGREE, and JOINTLY REQUEST the following: 7 1. By October 15, 2009, each Defendant will deliver to Plaintiff a letter enumerating what it 8 believes to be the deficiencies in the Complaint that will form the bases for its motion to 9 dismiss. With respect to any Federal Securities law claims, such letters shall focus on 10 11 Second Circuit law, and not Ninth Circuit law. 2. By October 22, 2009, Plaintiff will notify Defendants whether it intends to amend the 12 Complaint, with the understanding that Defendants do not currently intend to consent to 13 any further amendments, except as provided in Paragraph 6 below. 14 3. If Plaintiff notifies Defendants that it will not amend the Complaint, Defendants will 15 answer or otherwise move in response to the Complaint no later than: (a) 20 days after 16 Defendants’ counsel receive notice that the MDL Panel has filed the Conditional Transfer 17 Order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; (b) 20 18 days after an Order is entered should this Court transfer this Action to the Southern 19 District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or (c) 30 days after an Order is entered 20 should this Court decline to transfer this Action to the Southern District of New York. 21 4. If Plaintiff notifies Defendants that it will amend the Complaint, Defendants will answer 22 or otherwise move in response to the Amended Complaint no later than 25 days after 23 service of the Amended Complaint. However, in no event shall Defendants be required 24 to answer or otherwise move in response to the Amended Complaint until: (a) 20 days 25 after Defendants’ counsel receive notice that the MDL Panel has filed the Conditional 26 Transfer Order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; 27 (b) 20 days after an Order is entered should this Court transfer this Action to the Southern 28 District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or (c) 30 days after an Order is entered 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 1 2 Filed10/05/09 Page4 of 6 should this Court decline to transfer this Action to the Southern District of New York. 5. If any Defendant elects to move to dismiss the Complaint and this action has been 3 transferred to the Southern District of New York either by the MDL Panel or pursuant to 4 DBSI’s Transfer Motion, such motion will not raise any arguments not set forth in that 5 particular Defendant’s Deficiency Letter. 6 6. If (a) Plaintiff gives notice pursuant to ¶ 2 above that it does not intend to amend the 7 Complaint, (b) this Action has not been transferred to the Southern District of New York, 8 (c) any Defendant makes any argument not included in that particular Defendant’s 9 Deficiency Letter in a motion to dismiss, and (d) Plaintiff seeks to amend its Complaint, 10 11 then such Defendant will consent to Plaintiff’s amendment of the Complaint. 7. In the event that any Defendant elects to move to dismiss the Complaint or the Amended 12 Complaint, Plaintiff will serve an opposition to that particular motion to dismiss no later 13 than 45 days after service of that motion to dismiss. That particular Defendant shall have 14 30 days to serve any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. 15 16 8. This stipulation should not be construed to be a consent to jurisdiction by Fitch Ratings Ltd. or a waiver by Fitch Ratings Ltd. of its objection to jurisdiction. 17 18 Respectfully submitted, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP PAGE R. BARNES BILL J. SYMES DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 19 BY: 20 21 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED 22 23 24 /s/ Page R. Barnes SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. R. ALEXANDER SAVERI GEOFFREY C. RUSHING GIANNA GRUENWALD DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 25 26 BY: 27 /s/ R. Alexander Saveri ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 1 Filed10/05/09 Page5 of 6 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 BY: 2 3 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. 4 5 PERKINS COIE DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 BY: 6 /s/ David T. Biderman ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC. 7 8 /s/ David McCarthy TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 9 BY: /s/ Jayesh S. Hines-Shah 10 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS FITCH, INC. AND FITCH RATINGS, LTD. 11 12 MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 BY: 13 14 /s/ Jami W. McKeon ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. 15 16 17 18 19 20 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ______________, 2009 __________________________________________ Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document41 1 Filed10/05/09 Page6 of 6 GENERAL ORDER 45 CERTIFICATION 2 I, Page R. Barnes, hereby attest pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45 that 3 the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory 4 hereto. 5 DATED: OCTOBER 5, 2009 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BY: 6 7 /s/ Page R. Barnes ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., AND MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO.: C 09-3780-SI
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
