Staehr v. Tataseo et al, No. 3:2006cv07370 - Document 6 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Court Description: ORDER granting 4 Stipulation,, filed by Tully M. Friedman,, The Clorox Company,, Daniel Boggan, Jr., Dean O. Morton,, Gerald E. Johnston,, Karen M. Rose,, Lawrence S. Peiros,, Daniel J. Heinrich,, Lary R. Scott,, Gary C. Michael,, Robert W. Matschu llat,, Jan L. Murley,, Michael E. Shannon,, Carolyn M. Ticknor,, Pamela Thomas Graham,, George J. Harad,, C. Craig Sullivan,, Richard T. Conti,, C. A. Wolfe,, Christoph Henkel,, Klaus Morwind,, William R. Johnson,. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 12/7/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2006)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Staehr v. Tataseo et al Doc. 6 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 11 of of 77 MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (BAR NO. 34097) mgoldman@mofo.com JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) jeth@mofo.com JUDSON E. LOBDELL (BAR NO. 146041) jlobdell@mofo.com MARK FOSTER (BAR NO. 223682) mfoster@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company; Defendants Daniel Boggan, Jr., Richard T. Conti, Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, Gerald E. Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean O. Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. Rose, Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. Ticknor; and Specially Appearing Defendants George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. Johnson, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela Thomas-Graham, and C.A. Wolfe 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 DORIS STAEHR, Derivatively On Behalf of THE CLOROX COMPANY, DERIVATIVE ACTION Case No. 16 C-06-7370-MJJ Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FRANK A. TATASEO, LAWRENCE S. PEIROS, GEORGE C. ROETH, STEVEN S. SILBERBLATT, KEITH R. TANDOWSKY, GREGORY S. FRANK, WAYNE L. DELKER, DANIEL J. HEINRICH, LAURA STEIN, WARWICK EVERY-BURNS, LARY R. SCOTT, GARY C. MICHAEL, DANIEL BOGGAN, JR., TULLY M. FRIEDMAN, ROBERT W. MATSCHULLAT, JAN L. MURLEY, MICHAEL E. SHANNON, CAROLYN M. TICKNOR, PAMELA THOMAS GRAHAM, GEORGE J. HARAD, C. CRAIG SULLIVAN, GERALD E. JOHNSTON, WILLIAM F. AUSFAHL, JOHN W. COLLINS, ANTHONY W. BIEBL, JANET M. BRADY, KAREN M. ROSE, RICHARD T. CONTI, [Caption continued on following page], STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT Judge: Honorable Martin J. Jenkins Dept: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 Dockets.Justia.com Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 22 of of 77 GLENN R. SAVAGE, DAVID G. MATZ, SCOTT A. WEISS, SCOTT D. HOUSE, DANIEL G. SIMPSON, PETER D. BEWLEY, EDWARD A. CUTTER, PAMELA FLETCHER, C. A. WOLFE, EDWARD L. SCARFF, DEAN O. MORTON, CHRISTOPH HENKEL, URSULA FAIRCHILD, FORREST N. SHUMWAY, JAMES A. VOHS, JUERGEN MANCHOT, JOCHEN KRAUTTER, KLAUS MORWIND, ELAINE L. CHAO, WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 7 8 Document Document 64 Defendants, -andTHE CLOROX COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, 10 Nominal Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 33 of of 77 STIPULATION 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-12, and paragraph 7 of the Court’s Standing 2 3 Order, Plaintiff Doris Staehr and the defendants who have been served to date, which include: 4 Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company, Defendants Daniel Boggan, Jr., Richard T. Conti, 5 Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, Gerald E. Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean O. 6 Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. Rose, Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. 7 Ticknor, and Specially Appearing Defendants George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. 8 Johnson, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela 9 Thomas-Graham, and C.A. Wolfe, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. 10 On August 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed her shareholder derivative complaint on August 11 4, 2006 (the “Original Complaint”) in the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda 12 County asserting nine causes of action and naming twenty-one individual defendants and 13 Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company (“Clorox”). The Original Complaint pleaded causes of 14 action for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties for approving improperly dated stock 15 option grants, breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of funds, abuse 16 of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, accounting, rescission, and 17 constructive trust. (Lobdell Declaration. ¶ 2.)1 2. 18 On September 1, 2006, Clorox filed and served a demurrer to the Original 19 Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring her derivative suit on behalf of Clorox 20 because she had not made a pre-suit demand on the Clorox’s board of directors and she had not 21 pleaded with particularity that demand was excused. (Id. ¶ 3.) 3. 22 During the months of August and September 2006, the already-served defendants 23 agreed to accept service of process without waiving any defenses (including their right to assert 24 that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California). (Id. ¶ 4.) 25 26 27 1 Citations to the “Lobdell Declaration” are to the Declaration of Judson E. Lobdell that is being filed concurrently with and in support of this Stipulation pursuant to the requirements of the Court’s Standing Order. 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 1 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 4. 1 Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 44 of of 77 On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of her intent to file an amended 2 complaint, and defendants subsequently granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file her amended 3 complaint. (Id. ¶ 5.) 5. 4 5 On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed her Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). (Id. ¶ 6.) 6. 6 The Amended Complaint added twenty-seven new individual defendants who 7 were not named in the Original Complaint. The Amended Complaint reasserted the causes of 8 action pleaded in the Original Complaint and added three new causes of action: violation of 9 California Corporations Code Section 25402, violation of California Corporations Code Section 10 25403, and violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the 11 “Exchange Act”). (Id. ¶ 7.) 7. 12 On December 1, 2006, after giving advance notice to Plaintiff, all defendants who 13 have been served to date removed the case to this Court on the ground that federal courts have 14 exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Section 16(b) claim pursuant to Section 27 of 15 the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims. (Id. ¶ 16 8.) 17 8. The twenty-seven newly added individual defendants include current and former 18 directors, officers, and other executives of Clorox, many of whom live in other states or foreign 19 countries. They have not yet been served with the Amended Complaint. (Id. ¶ 9.) 20 9. Counsel are diligently pursuing efforts to coordinate service of process and 21 representation of the newly added individual defendants. Counsel for the already-served 22 defendants are in the process of contacting defendants who have not yet been served to discuss 23 issues including accepting service of process on their behalf. (Id. ¶ 10.) 24 10. A response to the Amended Complaint from the defendants who have been served 25 in this action to date would be due on December 8, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 81(c). (Id. ¶ 11.) 27 28 11. The parties have met and conferred and agree that it will promote efficiency and orderly administration of justice if the time allowed to each defendant already served to respond STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 2 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 55 of of 77 1 to the Amended Complaint is extended in light of the service of process and representation issues 2 discussed above. (Id. ¶ 12.) 3 THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, that no 4 defendant shall be required to respond to the Amended Complaint before January 19, 2007. 5 Dated: December 6, 2006 6 7 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 268-7522 8 By: /s/ Judson E. Lobdell [e-filing signature] 9 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company; Defendants Daniel Boggan, Jr., Richard T. Conti, Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, Gerald E. Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean O. Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. Rose, Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. Ticknor; and Specially Appearing Defendants George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. Johnson, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela ThomasGraham, and C.A. Wolfe 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DATED: December 6, 2006 ROBBINS UMEDA & FINK, LLP 610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 20 21 By: /s/ Marc M. Umeda [e-filing signature] 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 3 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 1 2 Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 66 of of 77 [PROPOSED] ORDER On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, 3 4 7th December IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ Day of _____________, 2006. 5 6 7 Honorable Martin J. Jenkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 4 Case Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document Document 64 Filed Filed 12/06/2006 12/07/2006 Page Page 77 of of 77 1 ECF ATTESTATION 2 I, Mark Foster, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file this: 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 6 7 In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Judson E. Lobdell and Marc M. Umeda have concurred in this filing. DATED: December 6, 2006 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 8 9 By: /s/ Mark Foster [e-filing signature] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ sf-2232470 5
]]>
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.
