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)
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?