The Anschutz Corporation v. Merryll Lynch & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 140

ORDER continuing motions to 9/24/10 at 9 a.m. and the cmc to 10/1/10 @ 2:30 p.m. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010)

Download PDF
Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP JAMI WINTZ MCKEON, State Bar No. 237923 ELIZABETH A. FROHLICH, State Bar No. 195454 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 E-mail: jmckeon@MorganLewis.com E-mail: efrohlich@MorganLewis.com Attorneys for Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.; THE McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.; FITCH, INC.; AND FITCH RATINGS, INC., Defendants Case No. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Judge: Hon. Susan Illston 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint filed: August 17, 2009 First Amend. Complaint filed: March 19, 2010 CASE NO. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page2 of 6 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 Plaintiff The Anschutz Corporation ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("DBSI"), Fitch, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd, and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ("McGraw-Hill," and collectively "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 19, 2010; WHEREAS, the Court issued its order denying DBSI's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on April 13, 2010; WHEREAS, the parties previously stipulated and the Court ordered that if DBSI's motion to transfer was denied, the Defendants would have 30 days after such order was entered to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's operative pleading (i.e. May 13, 2010), if any defendant filed a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff would serve its opposition within 45 days after service of any such motion to dismiss (i.e. June 28, 2010), and Defendants would have 30 days to serve any reply (i.e. July 30, 2010) (the "Previous Stipulation and Court Order"); WHEREAS, on May 13, 2010, Defendants filed the following motions: DBSI filed (1) a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; (2) a Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; and (3) a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; Fitch, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd, and McGraw-Hill (collectively, the "Rating Agencies") filed (1) a Joint Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; and (2) a Request for Judicial Notice; and Fitch Ratings Ltd filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) (collectively, "Defendants' Motions" or the "Motions"); WHEREAS, Defendants inadvertently noticed each of the aforementioned motions for hearing on June 18, 2010, in accordance with the Court's Local Rules, rather than the terms of the Previous Stipulation and Court Order; /// 1 CASE NO. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page3 of 6 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, on May 17, 2010, the Court issued a Notice that the hearings on Defendants' Motions were continued to Friday, July 9, 2010, some 21 days before Defendants' Reply briefs are currently due; WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred with regard to a hearing date on Defendants' Motions and agree to continue the hearing date to September 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to allow Defendants to file their reply briefs prior to the hearing date and in accordance with the Previous Stipulation and Court Order; WHEREAS, a case management conference is currently scheduled for June 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, all discovery has been stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss; IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, acting through their respective counsel, subject to this Court's approval, as follows: 1. The hearing on Defendants' Motions shall be continued to September 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; and 2. The case management conference currently scheduled for June 18, 2010 shall be rescheduled to a date after the pending motions to dismiss are resolved. Dated: May 26, 2010 /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 R. Alexander Saveri (173102) Geoffrey C. Rushing (126910) SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5619 Attorneys for The Anschutz Corporation 2 CASE NO. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page4 of 6 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 Dated: May 26, 2010 __/s/ Jonathan A. Patchen_______ Stephen E. Taylor (58452) Jonathan A. Patchen (237346) Stephen McG. Bundy (253017) TAYLOR AND COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP One Ferry Building, Suite 355 San Francisco, CA 94111 Martin Flumenbaum (pro hac vice) Roberta A. Kaplan (pro hac vice) Andrew J. Ehrlich (pro hac vice) Tobias J. Stern (pro hac vice) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Attorneys for Fitch, Inc. and Fitch Ratings Ltd Dated: May 26, 2010 __/s/ David T. Biderman____________ David T. Biderman (101577) Farschad Farzan (215194) PERKINS COIE LLP 1620 26th Street, Sixth Floor, South Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404 Floyd Abrams S. Penny Windle Tammy L. Roy CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Attorneys for The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Dated: May 26, 2010 __/s/ Elizabeth A. Frohlich____________ Elizabeth A. Frohlich (195454) Jami Wintz McKeon (237923) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. 27 28 3 CASE NO. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page5 of 6 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 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ________________, 2010 ___________________________________ Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge The initial case management conference has been continued to Friday, October 1, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. 4 CASE NO. C 09-03780-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO RESCHEDULE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case3:09-cv-03780-SI Document138 Filed05/26/10 Page6 of 6 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: May 26, 2010 GENERAL ORDER 45 CERTIFICATION I, Elizabeth A. Frohlich, hereby attest pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45 that the concurrences to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jami Wintz McKeon Elizabeth A. Frohlich By /s/ Elizabeth A. Frohlich Elizabeth A. Frohlich Attorneys for Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. CASE NO. C 09-3780-SI GENERAL ORDER 45 CERTIFICATION

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?