Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING Stipulation re Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 8, 2009. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2009)

Download PDF
CaseM:09-cv-02014-JSW Document96 Filed10/08/09 Page1 of 5 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 (Attorney list on signature page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION In re Bank of America Corp. Auction Rate Securities Marketing Litigation This Document Relates to: Bondar v. Bank of America Corp. No. C 08-2599 (JSW) MDL No. 09-2014 AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER Hon. Jeffrey S. White WHEREAS on September 29, 2009, the hearing on Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Banc of America Securities LLC, and Banc of America Investment Services, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Bondar v. Bank of America Corp., No. C 08-2599 (JSW) was moved from November 20, 2009 to December 11, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 103-104) WHEREAS on October 7, 2009, Class Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed order to extend the dates for the filing of Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss from October 9 to October 30, and Defendants' reply thereto from October 30 to November 25. (Dkt. No. 105) WHEREAS on October 7, 2009, the Court denied the stipulation, finding that the continuance of the hearing on the motion to dismiss did not provide good cause to modify the briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 106) WHEREAS counsel for the parties have conferred, and Plaintiffs respectfully submit and Defendants do not oppose the following amended [proposed] scheduling order that provides for a one week extension of the existing briefing schedule for Plaintiffs and one week for Defendants and retains the existing hearing date. AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-2599 (JSW) CaseM:09-cv-02014-JSW Document96 Filed10/08/09 Page2 of 5 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 WHEREAS under the existing schedule, Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is due on October 9, 2009, Defendants' reply is due on October 30, 2009, and the motion is scheduled to be heard on December 11, 2009, six weeks after briefing will be completed. WHEREAS since Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2009, there have been three decisions issued in other auction rate securities matters that are potentially relevant to the briefing on the pending motion to dismiss. The three decisions are In re: Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83046 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2009); Defer LP v. Raymond James Financial, Inc., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84685 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2009); and Zisholtz v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88465 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2009). WHEREAS these three recent decisions have required additional research and analysis in connection with Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and are likely to be included in the arguments advanced in support of and in opposition to the motion. These decisions have also resulted in changes to briefing schedules in other auction rate securities matters that Plaintiffs' counsel are involved in. Plaintiffs respectfully submit, and Defendants do not oppose, that the requested extension sought here is reasonable given the complexity of the issues raised by Defendants' motion, the growing body of case law in auction rate securities litigation matters, and the pleading standards applicable to securities claims. WHEREAS the extension sought will not result in any prejudice to the parties or delay the litigation, and the parties do not anticipate requesting any further extension of the briefing schedule or hearing date. If this stipulation is granted, the Court will have four weeks to review the parties' briefing on the motion to dismiss before the December 11, 2009 hearing date. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully propose, and Defendants do not oppose, the following amended schedule, subject to this Court's approval: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on October 16, 2009, and Defendants shall file their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on November 13, 2009. -2- AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-2599 (JSW) CaseM:09-cv-02014-JSW Document96 Filed10/08/09 Page3 of 5 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 Dated: October 8, 2009 GIRARD GIBBS LLP By: _/s/ Aaron M. Sheanin_____ Daniel C. Girard, dcg@girardgibbs.com Jonathan K. Levine, jkl@girardgibbs.com Aaron M. Sheanin, ams@girardgibbs.com Christina H. C. Sharp, chc@girardgibbs.com 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94108 Tel: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: __/s/ B. Andrew Bednark ___________ Jonathan Rosenberg, jrosenberg@omm.com B. Andrew Bednark, abednark@omm.com 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 326-2000 Fax: (212) 326-2061 Robert Stern, rstern@omm.com 1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414 Debra S. Belaga, dbelaga@omm.com Aaron M. Rofkahr, arofkahr@omm.com Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Attorneys for Defendants -3- AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-2599 (JSW) CaseM:09-cv-02014-JSW Document96 Filed10/08/09 Page4 of 5 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. [PROPOSED] ORDER Having reviewed the above stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties have shown good cause for an extension of the existing briefing schedule. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss by October 16, 2009, and Defendants shall file their reply in support of the motion to dismiss by November 13, 2009. October 8, 2009 DATED: ______________________ _____________________________________ THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -4- AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-2599 (JSW)

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?