Harben v. Dillard et al

Filing 31

ORDER approving 30 Stipulation by the parties that plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion to stay on October 9, 2009 and defts shall file their reply, if any, to plaintiff's opposition on October 26, 2009. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/5/09. (bkp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION STEVEN HARBEN, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant DILLARD'S INC. v. CASE NO. 4:09cv395 BSM DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF WILLIAM DILLARD II, JAMES I. FREEMAN, ALEX DILLARD, MIKE DILLARD, DRUE MATHENY, JAMES A. HASLAM III, PETER R. JOHNSON, ROBERT C. CONNOR, R. BRAD MARTIN, FRANK R. MORI, WARREN A. STEPHENS, and NICK WHITE DILLARD'S INC. NOMINAL DEFENDANT STIPULATION TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY THESE PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOR OF PARALLEL STATE COURT ACTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WHEREAS, on June 18, 2009, the parties submitted a joint motion to the court requesting an extension of defendants' time to respond to plaintiff's verified shareholder derivative complaint ("complaint") filed in the above-captioned action on May 27, 2009; WHEREAS, on June 19, 2009, the court granted the parties' joint motion, requiring defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by August 18, 2009; WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, the court entered an initial scheduling order, requiring the parties to: (i) hold a Rule 26(f) conference by August 26, 2009; and (ii) submit Rule 26(f) reports to the court by September 9, 2009; WHEREAS, on August 18, 2009, defendants filed their motion to stay these proceedings in favor of parallel state court action or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint ("motion"); WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the parties held their Rule 26(f) conference; WHEREAS, during the parties' Rule 26(f) conference the parties agreed to a briefing schedule on the motion; WHEREAS, on August 31, 2009, the parties submitted to the court a stipulation and proposed order to set a briefing schedule for the motion; WHEREAS, on September 10, 2009, the court granted the stipulated to briefing schedule on the motion, which provided for plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion on October 2, 2009 and defendants to file their reply, if any, to plaintiff's opposition on October 19, 2009; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and agreed to modify the briefing schedule as set forth below; and WHEREAS, the agreed-upon briefing schedule is not for the purpose of delay and will not prejudice any party. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to the court's approval, as follows: 1. 2. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion on October 9, 2009. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, to plaintiff's opposition on October 26, 2009. Dated: October 1, 2009 2 McMATH WOODS P.A. By: /s/ James Bruce McMath James Bruce McMath (#75090) 711 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 396-5400 Fax: 501-374-5118 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER CHECK, LLP Eric L. Zagar Robin Winchester J. Daniel Albert Ligaya T. Hernandez 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK By: /s/ James Simpson James Simpson (# 77125) David D. Wilson (# 90112) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel (501) 376-2011 Fax (501) 370-1546 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Joseph McLaughlin 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Tel (215) 455-2000 Fax (215) 455-2502 Attorneys for Defendants William Dillard II, James I. Freeman, Alex Dillard, Mike Dillard, Drue Matheny, James A. Haslam III, Peter R. Johnson, Robert C. Connor, R. Brad Martin, Frank R. Mori, Warren A. Stephens and Nick White, and Nominal Defendant Dillard's Inc. *** ORDER PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2009. _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?