Liberty v. Smith et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting 47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal and [Proposed] Order filed by David P Steiner, Frederick W Smith, Gary W Loveman, John A Edwardson, R. Brad Martin, Susan C Schwab, Shirley Ann Jackson, James L Barksdale, Steven R Loranger, Paul S. Walsh, Joshua Cooper Ramo and Nominal defendant FedEx Corporation. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/23/2016. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Emily V. Griffen (SBN 209162) SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 535 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2997 Telephone: (415) 616-1100 Facsimile: (415) 616-1199 Email: egriffen@shearman.com Jaculin Aaron (SBN 133983) SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 Facsimile: (212) 848-7179 Email: jaaron@shearman.com Attorneys for Defendants Frederick W. Smith; James L. Barksdale; John A. Edwardson; Shirley Ann Jackson; Steven R. Loranger; Gary W. Loveman; R. Brad Martin; Joshua Cooper Ramo; Susan C. Schwab; David P. Steiner; and Paul S. Walsh 12 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 16 17 18 CHRISTOPHER LIBERTY, derivatively on behalf of FEDEX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 19 FREDERICK W. SMITH; JAMES L. BARKSDALE; JOHN A. EDWARDSON; SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON; STEVEN R. LORANGER; GARY W. LOVEMAN; R. BRAD MARTIN; JOSHUA COOPER RAMO; SUSAN C. SCHWAB; DAVID P. STEINER; and PAUL S. WALSH, JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ORDER vs. 20 Case No. 3:14-cv-03810-CRB 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Courtroom: Judge: No. 6, 17th Floor Hon. Charles R. Breyer Defendants, -andFEDEX CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant. 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03810-CRB 324828 1 Defendants Frederick W. Smith, James L. Barksdale, John A. Edwardson, Shirley Ann 2 Jackson, Steven R. Loranger, Gary W. Loveman, R. Brad Martin, Joshua Cooper Ramo, Susan C. 3 Schwab, David P. Steiner, Paul S. Walsh, and Nominal Defendant FedEx Corporation (together, 4 “Defendants”), and Plaintiff Christopher Liberty (“Plaintiff” and, together with the Defendants, the 5 “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, subject to Court approval, hereby stipulate 6 and agree as follows: 7 8 9 10 WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Shareholder Derivative Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendants (Dkt. No. 1) (the “Complaint”); WHEREAS, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on November 21, 2014 (Dkt. No. 17), which has been fully briefed by the Parties; 11 WHEREAS, prior to the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court issued an 12 Order on April 2, 2015 staying the case “[i]n light of the pending criminal matter involving the 13 same or similar series of underlying events as those alleged in this case . . . .” (Dkt. No. 34); 14 15 WHEREAS, the related pending criminal matter was voluntarily dismissed by the Government on June 17, 2016; 16 WHEREAS, Plaintiff, through his counsel of record and pursuant to Rules 23.1(c) and 41(a) 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has agreed to voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice 18 as to himself and otherwise without prejudice; 19 WHEREAS, there has been no collusion among the Parties, and neither Plaintiff nor his 20 counsel has received or will receive directly or indirectly any consideration from any Defendant for 21 the dismissal; 22 WHEREAS, the Parties shall bear their own fees and costs in connection with this action; 23 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between Plaintiff, by 24 and through his counsel, and Defendants, by and through their counsel, subject to the Court’s 25 approval, that Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice as to himself. 26 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 1 CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03810-CRB 324828 1 Dated: August 19, 2016 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 2 3 By: Emily V. Griffen Emily V. Griffen 4 535 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2997 Telephone: 415.616.1100 Facsimile: 415.616.1199 5 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants Frederick W. Smith; James L. Barksdale; John A. Edwardson; Shirley Ann Jackson; Steven R. Loranger; Gary W. Loveman; R. Brad Martin; Joshua Cooper Ramo; Susan C. Schwab; David P. Steiner; and Paul S. Walsh 8 9 10 11 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 12 13 By: Peter D. Blumberg Peter D. Blumberg (admitted pro hac vice) 14 Legal Department - Litigation Building B, Second Floor 3620 Hacks Cross Road Memphis, TN 38125 Telephone: 901.434.8575 Facsimile: 901.434.4523 15 16 17 18 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Federal Express Corporation 19 20 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 21 By: 22 Mark C. Molumphy Mark C. Molumphy 23 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650.697.6000 Facsimile: 650.697.0577 24 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Liberty, derivatively on behalf of Federal Express Corporation 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 2 CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03810-CRB 324828 1 2 3 ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)) In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories. 4 DATED: August 19, 2016 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 5 By: 6 Emily V. Griffen Attorneys for Defendants Frederick W. Smith; James L. Barksdale; John A. Edwardson; Shirley Ann Jackson; Steven R. Loranger; Gary W. Loveman; R. Brad Martin; Joshua Cooper Ramo; Susan C. Schwab; David P. Steiner; and Paul S. Walsh 7 8 9 10 11 * * * 12 ORDER 13 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon good cause shown, the above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff and otherwise without prejudice. 15 16 17 DATED: August 23, 2016 Hon. Charles R. Breyer United State District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 3 CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03810-CRB 324828

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?