Louisiana Pacific Corporation v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING 133 Stipulation to Extend Time to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 13, 2011. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

Download PDF
Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Filed04/13/11 Page1 of 4 Mark C. Hansen mhansen@khhte.com David L. Schwarz (206257) dschwarz@khhte.com Kevin J. Miller (pro hac vice) kmiller@khhte.com Andrew C. Shen (pro hac vice) ashen@khhte.com KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 R. Alexander Saveri (173102) rick@saveri.com Geoffrey C. Rushing (126910) grushing@saveri.com Gianna Gruenwald (228969) gianna@saveri.com SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5619 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 Attorneys for Plaintiff Louisiana Pacific Corporation 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MONEY MARKET 1 INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENT DEALER, MERRILL LYNCH ) ) & CO., INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, AND ) ) DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., ) ) Defendants, ) ) LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION, Case No. C 09 03529 JSW STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Ctrm: 11 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; Case No.: C 09 03529 JSW Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document133 1 2 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed in this Court its Complaint in the abovecaptioned action (the “Action”); 3 4 WHEREAS, on March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed in this Court its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the Action; 5 6 Filed04/13/11 Page2 of 4 WHEREAS, on April 21, 2010, Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (“DBSI ”) filed a Motion To Dismiss the FAC; 7 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011, this Court issued an Order granting DBSI’s Motion To 8 Dismiss with leave to amend, and stating that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended 9 complaint as against DBSI, it shall do so by no later than April 29, 2011”; and 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has conferred with DBSI and both parties have agreed that Plaintiff 11 shall have until May 20, 2011 to file a Second Amended Complaint as against DBSI in the 12 Action. 13 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and DBSI, 14 acting through their respective counsel, subject to this Court’s approval, that Plaintiff shall have 15 until May 20, 2011 to file a Second Amended Complaint. 16 17 Dated: April 13, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 By: /s/ Andrew C. Shen Mark C. Hansen David L. Schwarz (206257) Kevin J. Miller (pro hac vice) Andrew C. Shen (pro hac vice) KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Plaintiff Louisiana Pacific Corporation 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; Case No.: C 09 03529 JSW Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document133 1 Filed04/13/11 Page3 of 4 Dated: April 13, 2011 By: 2 3 /s/ Elizabeth A. Frohlich Jami Wintz McKeon (237923) Elizabeth A. Frohlich (195454) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 4 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: April __, 2011 13 17 18 19 __________________________________________ 20 Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; Case No.: C 09 03529 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?