The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv03780 - Document 118 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER granting extension (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2010)

Download PDF

The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 118 STEPHEN E. TAYLOR (State Bar No. 58452) JONATHAN A. PATCHEN (State Bar No. 237346) STEPHEN McG. BUNDY (State Bar No. 253017) TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP One Ferry Building, Suite 355 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415-788-8200 Facsimile: 415-788-8208 Attorneys for Defendants Fitch, Inc. and Fitch Ratings, Ltd. DAVID T. BIDERMAN (State Bar No. 101577) FARSCHAD FARZAN (State Bar No. 215194) 8 PERKINS COIE LLP Four Embarcadero Center 9 Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Telephone: 415-344-7000 Facsimile: 415-344-7050 11 Attorneys for Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 12 7 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. 23 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.; THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.; FITCH, INC. AND FITCH RATINGS, LTD., 24 Defendants. 20 21 22 CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b) The Honorable Susan Illston Complaint filed: August 17, 2009 First Amend. Complaint filed: March 19, 2010 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff The Anschutz Corporation (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants The McGraw- 2 Hill Companies, Inc., Fitch, Inc., and Fitch Ratings Ltd. (the “Rating Agencies”),1 by and 3 through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 4 5 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting 11 causes of action, on March 19, 2010; WHEREAS, the FAC asserts negligent misrepresentation claims against the 7 Rating Agencies in connection with credit ratings issued to auction-rate securities 8 (“ARS”)—financial instruments that pay interest at rates set at periodic auctions; 9 WHEREAS, the FAC alleges over the course of 272 paragraphs and 87 pages that 10 the Rating Agencies assigned certain ARS underwritten by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. 11 the highest credit ratings available, that these ratings were false and misleading, and that, 12 in assigning, monitoring, and failing to correct these ratings, the Rating Agencies failed 13 to exercise reasonable care; 14 WHEREAS, the Ratings Agencies intend to file motions to dismiss the FAC, and 15 propose to submit a joint memoranda of law in support of their motions to dismiss; 16 WHEREAS, Fitch Ratings Ltd. intends to concurrently make a separate motion to 17 dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and intends 18 to file a separate memoranda of law in support of that motion; 19 WHEREAS, the parties agree that the FAC’s scope and complexity warrant a 20 modest increase in the page limit set by Local Rule 7-4(b) for the Rating Agencies’ 21 opening brief in support of their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s opposition to the Rating 22 Agencies’ motion to dismiss, and the Rating Agencies’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition; 23 24 1 Fitch Ratings Ltd. shall appear specially to join the Rating Agencies’ motion to 25 dismiss, but contests the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it in this action, and shall 26 concurrently make a separate motion to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). By joining this stipulation, Fitch Ratings Ltd. does not 27 waive, and expressly preserves, its personal jurisdiction objections. 28 -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and 1 2 the Rating Agencies, acting through their respective counsel, subject to this Court’s 3 approval, as follows: 1. 4 The Rating Agencies’ joint memorandum of points and authorities in 5 support of their motions to dismiss, which is due on or before May 13, 2010, shall not 6 exceed 50 pages in length (exclusive of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and 7 exhibits); 8 2. 9 Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the Rating Agencies’ motions to dismiss shall not exceed 50 pages (exclusive of title pages, 10 indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); 3. 11 The Rating Agencies’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in 12 further support of their motions to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages in length (exclusive 13 of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); 4. 14 Fitch Ratings Ltd.’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its 15 separate motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) shall not exceed 15 pages 16 (exclusive of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); 5. 17 Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Fitch 18 Ratings Ltd.’s separate motion to dismiss shall not exceed 15 pages (exclusive of title 19 pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); and 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI 6. 1 Fitch Ratings Ltd.’s reply memorandum of points and authorities in further 2 support of its separate motions to dismiss shall not exceed 8 pages in length (exclusive of 3 title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits). 4 Dated: May 10, 2010 5 6 7 KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Mark C. Hansen David L. Schwarz Kevin J. Miller Andrew C. Shen 8 By: 9 10 /s/ Andrew C. Shen Andrew C. Shen Attorneys for Plaintiff The Anschutz Corporation 11 12 13 Dated: May 10, 2010 14 15 TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP Stephen E. Taylor Jonathan A. Patchen Stephen McG. Bundy 16 By: 17 /s/ Jonathan A. Patchen Jonathan A. Patchen 18 Attorneys for Defendants Fitch, Inc. and Fitch Ratings, Ltd. 19 20 21 Dated: May 10, 2010 22 PERKINS COIE LLP Farschad Farzan By: 23 24 /s/ Farschad Farzan Farschad Farzan Attorneys for Defendant The McGrawHill Companies, Inc. 25 26 /// /// 27 /// 28 /// -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ____________________, 2010 3 4 ________________________________ Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-SI 1 GENERAL ORDER ATTESTATION 2 I, Jonathan A. Patchen, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file 3 the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting Leave to Exceed Page Limits Established 4 by Local Rule 7-4(b). In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Andrew 5 C. Shen and Farschad Farzan have concurred in this filing. 6 7 /s/ Jonathan A. Patchen Jonathan A. Patchen 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b): CASE NO. CV-09-03780-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.