Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Filing 279

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gregory Hicks, Erik Knutzen, Tash Hepting, Benson B. Roe, Carolyn Jewel re 278 Letter (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2006)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JAMES N. KRAMER (STATE BAR NO. 154709) [e-mail] JONATHAN B. GASKIN (STATE BAR NO. 203625) [e-mail] BENJAMIN P. VAN HOUTEN (STATE BAR NO. 241355) [e-mail] LUCY E. BUFORD (STATE BAR NO. 244885) [e-mail] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-773-5759 Attorneys for Defendants Bryan D. Stolle, Carol B. Schrader, Dorothy O. Wise, Thomas P. Shanahan, Gregory G. Schott, William R. Jamaca, Jeff G. Johnson, Carolyn V. Aver, Christopher Wong, Jay B. Fulcher, Nancy J. Schoendorf, Paul Wahl, and Klaus-Dieter Laidig and Nominal and Third Party Defendant Agile Software Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re AGILE SOFTWARE CORPORATION DERIVATIVE LITIGATION _____________________________________

Case No. 5:06-cv-07434-JW [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS BRYAN D. STOLLE, JAY B. FULCHER, NANCY J. SCHOENDORF, PAUL WAHL, AND KLAUS-DIETER LAIDIG'S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: Time: Judge: October 1, 2007 9:00 a.m. Hon. James Ware

This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS

OHS West:260290614.1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 5:06-CV-07434-JW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants Bryan D. Stolle, Jay B. Fulcher, Nancy J. Schoendorf, Paul Wahl, and KlausDieter Laidig (the "Director Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Shareholder Class and Derivative Complaint. After considering the pleadings and other papers submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Shareholder Class and Derivative Complaint fails under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), and also finds that Plaintiffs are unable to cure these defects by amendment. Thus, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend, and this action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:______________

_______________________________ THE HONORABLE JAMES WARE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OHS West:260290614.1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DIRECTOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 5:06-CV-07434-JW