In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation

Filing 38

STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/2/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2010)

Galaviz -v- Berg

Doc. 38

*E-Filed 11/2/10* 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
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (36324) [e-mail] NANCY L. FINEMAN (124870) [e-mail] MARK C. MOLUMPHY (168009) [e-mail] JORDANNA G. THIGPEN (232642) [e-mail] MATTHEW K. EDLING (250940) [e-mail] COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Galaviz, derivatively on behalf of Oracle Corporation

JORDAN ETH (121617) [e-mail] PHILIP T. BESIROF (185053) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Oracle Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LISA GALAVIZ, derivatively on behalf of ORACLE CORPORATION, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 10-CV-3392-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

JEFFREY S. BERG, H. RAYMOND BINGHAM, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, SAFRA A CATZ, LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, HECTOR GARCIA-MOLINA, JEFFREY O. HENLEY, DONALD L. LUCAS CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR., NAOMI O. SELIGMAN, And DOES 1-5, inclusive, -andDefendants;

ORACLE CORPORATION Nominal Defendant.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The parties have met and conferred regarding ADR process. For the reasons discussed below, the parties agree to meet and confer further regarding ADR after the Court rules on Oracle's motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2010, Oracle filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue based on the forum-selection clause in Oracle's bylaws. Plaintiff believes that venue is proper in the Northern District of California and intends to oppose Oracle's motion. Oracle's motion to dismiss regarding venue is scheduled to be heard on December 2, 2010. Given the current uncertainty of the pleadings, the parties agree to meet and confer further regarding ADR within 60 days after the Court's ruling on Oracle's motion to dismiss.

13 Dated: October 29, 2010 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dated: October 29, 2010 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process

By: /s/ MATTHEW K. EDLING COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Galaviz, derivatively on behalf of Oracle Corporation By: /s/ (with permission) PHILIP T. BESIROF MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Oracle Corporation

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __11/__10 ________ __ 2/ __ __________________________________ RICHARD RICHIRD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE