Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas et al v. King et al

Filing 56

ORDER Staying Defendants' Time to Respond to the Complaint or Commence Motions Practice until further order of the US Bankuptcy Court for the District of Delaware or further order of this Court, granting Plaintffs' 43 MOTION to Modify the Stay Order 22 ; denying as moot the Parties' 19 , 20 Stipulations for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint (see order for further details). Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/3/11. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, in its capacity as successor
indenture trustee for certain series of
Senior Notes, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

vs.

14

Peter W. King and Jane Doe King,
husband and wife, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons, et. al.,

15
16

Defendants,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 11-1110-PHX-PGR

ORDER STAYING DEFENDANTS’
TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION
OR COMMENCE MOTIONS
PRACTICE UNTIL FURTHER
ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OR
FURTHER ORDER OF THIS
COURT

The Court having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion To Modify Stay Order (Doc. 43),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

The time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint in this action or

commence motions practice is stayed until further order of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware in In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC) or further order
of this Court (the “Stay”). In addition, any applicable deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil

25
Procedure 23 or 26 (or their local counterparts) will also be held in abeyance during the
26
pendency of the Stay.
27
28

2.

Notwithstanding the Stay, Plaintiffs are permitted to:

1

a. amend the Complaint or move for leave to amend the Complaint;

2

b. voluntarily dismiss this action or one or more defendants pursuant to

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41;

4

c. move to add or drop a party or to sever any claim against a party pursuant

5

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21;

6

d. move to consolidate and/or coordinate this action with any other action,

7

without limitation, by making a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and

8

the applicable Rules of Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Panel on

9

Multidistrict Litigation, or any applicable state rules;

10

e. file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking

11

pre-conference discovery that may be necessary solely for the purpose of

12

preventing applicable statutes of limitation or other time-related defenses

13

from barring any state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims

14

against

15

redemption/purchase payments made to such shareholders in connection

16

19
20
21
22
23
24

former

Tribune

shareholder

to

recover

stock

with the 2007 Tribune LBO; and

17
18

any

f. file a motion seeking modification of this Order.
3.

Notwithstanding the Stay, all Defendants or their counsel are required to enter

an appearance in this case within 30 days after the latter of entry of this Order or service of
the Complaint upon Defendant, without prejudice to any defenses or positions that Defendant
may have; and
4.

Notwithstanding the Stay, Defendants are permitted to file responses to any

motions Plaintiffs make pursuant to section 2 of this Order.
5.

Notwithstanding the Stay, any Defendant who was not provided with notice

25
of Plaintiffs’ motion prior to entry of this Order, because such defendant had not yet been
26
served with the Complaint or appeared in the action, may move this Court at any time to
27
28

-2-

1
2

vacate or modify this Order upon notice to Plaintiffs and all other Defendants in this action.
6.

At such time as the Stay is lifted or terminates, Plaintiffs shall within ten (10)

3

days inform the Court of the need to set the schedule for answering or otherwise responding

4

to the Complaint, unless the action has been transferred to another court for coordinated

5

pretrial proceedings.

6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulations for Extension of Time
to Answer Complaint (Docs. 19, 20) are denied as moot.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-