Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Johns et al

Filing 13

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 02/27/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
James E. Brandt (pro hac vice)
James K. Lynch (Bar No. 178600)
Andrew M. Farthing (Bar No. 237565)
Yasamin Parsafar (Bar No. 287617)
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
PG&E Corporation

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION
FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of PG&E
CORPORATION.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,

Case No. C 13-0550
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER
ACTION OR PROCEEDING (CIVIL L.R. 313); STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

v.
CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS, KENT M.
HARVEY, DINYAR B. MISTRY, C. LEE
COX, BARRY LAWSON WILLIAMS,
DAVID R. ANDREWS, BARBARA L.
RAMBO, MARYELLEN C. HERRINGER,
RICHARD A. MESERVE, ROGER H.
KIMMEL, LEWIS CHEW, PETER A.
DARBEE, and DAVID M. LAWRENCE,

20
Defendants,

21
22
23
24
25

and
PG&E CORPORATION, a California
corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
_______________________________/

26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VALLEY

1

NOTICE OF PENDENCY;
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME
CASE NO. C 13-0550

1
2

WHEREAS this stockholder derivative action, putatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”), was filed in this Court on February 7, 2013;

3
4
5

WHEREAS another stockholder derivative action putatively on behalf of PG&E
captioned Wollman v. Andrews, CIV 499832, was filed in the San Mateo Superior Court on
October 18, 2010 (the “Wollman Action”);1

6
7
8

WHEREAS both this action and the Wollman action involve the same Nominal
Defendant, many of the same individual defendants, and address the events leading to the gas
pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010;

9
10
11

WHEREAS not all defendants have yet been served with process in this action, but those
defendants that have not yet been served desire to waive service of process and all parties desire
to establish a uniform date by which all defendants must respond to the Complaint;

12
13

WHEREAS the parties are meeting and conferring regarding a variety of issues affecting
the case, including those relating to the Wollman Action; and

14
15

WHEREAS depending on those discussions, the parties may agree to further extend the
deadline by which all defendants must respond to the Complaint;

16

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

17

1.
2.

18
19

All defendants are deemed served with the Complaint as of the date hereof.
Defendants’ deadline to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint

shall be April 15, 2013.

20
21

Dated: February 27, 2013

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

22
By /s/ James K. Lynch
James K. Lynch
Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
PG&E Corporation

23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VALLEY

1

The Wollman Action has since been consolidated into the Judicial Council Coordinated
Proceeding No. 4648 captioned PG&E San Bruno Fire Cases.
2

NOTICE OF PENDENCY;
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME
CASE NO. C 13-0550

1

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP
Eric S. Waxman (Bar No. 106649)
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[phone]

2
3
4

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP
Amy S. Park (Bar No. 208204)
525 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
[phone]

5
6
7
8
9

By /s/ Amy S. Park
Amy S. Park
Attorneys for the Individual Defendants

10
11

ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
Brian J. Robbins (Bar No. 190264)
George C. Aguilar (Bar No. 126535)
Lauren N. Ochendusko (Bar No. 274227)
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
[phone]

12
13
14
15
16

By /s/ George C. Aguilar
George C. Aguilar
Attorneys for Plaintiff

17
18
19
20
21

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) of this Court, I, James K. Lynch, attest to
the fact that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other
signatories which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document.

22

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VALLEY

R NIA
FO

LI

ER

H

28

onti

amuel C

Judge S

RT

27

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

26

02/27/2013

A

25

UNIT
ED

24

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

S

23

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

3

NOTICE OF PENDENCY;
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME
CASE NO. C 13-0550