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

Filing 143

ORDER GRANTING 142 Stipulation Order Extending Defendant Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer's Time to Answer the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/17/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2011)

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document142

2
3
4
5

Filed06/17/11 Page1 of 4

Robert C. O'Brien (State Bar No. 154372)
Steven E. Bledsoe (State Bar No. 157811)
Antoinette Waller (State Bar No. 152895)
ARENT FOX LLP
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Telephone: [phone]/Facsimile: 213.629.7401
Email: obrien.robertAarent fox.com
bled soc.stevenki)arent rox..com
wal ler.antoi net te*t.rent lox ,,cop)

6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I0

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

[Before The Honorable Jeffrey S. White —
Courtroom 11]

V.
MONEY MARKET 1 INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTMENT DEALER; MERRILL
LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED; AND DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES, INC.,

Case No. CV09-03529-JSW

16
17

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT
MONEY MARKET 1 INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTMENT DEALER'S TIME TO
ANSWER THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[Local Rule 7-12]

18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Louisiana Pacific Corporation ("Plaintiff') and defendant Money Market 1
Institutional Investment Dealer ("MM 1"), acting through their respective counsel, enter into the
below stipulation:
WHEREAS, following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's order transferring a
portion of this case to the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"), Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 8, 2010 in this Court and concurrently filed the same
FAC in the SDNY alleging its claims against MM1 in both forums;

28
ARENT FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANGELES

CV09-03259-JSW

LA/470059.1

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEFENDANT MM I 'S TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document142

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2010, defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. ("DBSI") filed a

1
2

Filed06/17/11 Page2 of 4

Motion to Dismiss the FAC in this Court;

3

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2010, MM1 filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC in this Court;

4

WHEREAS, by Order dated March 28, 2011, the Court denied MM1's Motion to Dismiss

5

as pending in the Northern District of California, granted DBSI' s Motion to Dismiss, and granted

6

leave for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in this Court by April 29, 2011;

7

WHEREAS, the Court subsequently entered an order extending Plaintiff's time to file its

8

SAC in this Court through and until May 20, 2011;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its SAC in this Court on May 20, 2011;

9

WHEREAS, the SAC alleges over the course of 265 paragraphs and 92 pages that MM1

10
11

engaged in a comprehensive scheme to defraud Plaintiff in violation of Section 10(b) of the

12

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, that MM1 violated Sections 25500, 25501 and

13

25504.1 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, and that MM1 committed common

14

law fraud, common law negligent misrepresentation and common law breach of fiduciary duty in

15

connection with at least fourteen different series of auction-rate securities.

16

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and defendant DBSI previously stipulated and the Court ordered

17

that DBSI shall answer or otherwise respond to the SAC on or before June 27, 2011 and entered a

18

briefing schedule for an anticipated motion to dismiss by DBSI;

19
20

WHEREAS, the Court has set a hearing on DBSI's anticipated motion to dismiss the SAC
for September 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.;

21

WHEREAS, the parties stipulated and the Court ordered that MM1 would have until

22

twenty-one (21) days after the filing of the SAC to file an Answer to the SAC in this Court;

23
24

WHEREAS, the parties further agreed that MM l's answer to the SAC would be due on
June 17, 2011;

25

WHEREAS, MM1 has requested and Plaintiff has agreed to additional time for MM1 to

26

prepare its answer to the SAC through and until July 8, 2011;

27

///

28

///

ARENT FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CV09-03259-JSW

Los ANGELES

LA/470059.1

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEFENDANT MM I 'S TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case3:09-cv-03529-JSW Document142

1

Filed06/17/11 Page3 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and MM1,

2

acting through their respective counsel, subject to this Court's approval, that MM1 shall file an

3

answer to the SAC in this Court on or before July 8, 2011.

4

Dated: June 17, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

5

KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD,
EVANS, & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.

6
7

By: /s/ Andrew C. Shen
Andrew C. Shen
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Louisiana Pacific Corporation

8
9
10
11

Dated: June 17, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
ARENT FOX LLP

12
13

By: /s/ Antoinette Waller
Antoinette Waller
Attorneys for Defendant
Money Market 1 Institutional Investment
Dealer

14
15
16
17
18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

17
Dated: June , 2011

22
23

Hon. Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
ARENT FOX

LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los A

CV09-032594SW

NC FEES

LA/470059.1

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEFENDANT MM I 'S TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT