In re Autodesk, Inc. Derivative Litigation

Filing 80

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 76 Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part 78 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California IN RE AUTODESK, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ________________________________ THIS ORDER RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS ________________________________/ No. C 06-7185 PJH ORDER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The court dismissed the first amended complaint in the above-entitled shareholder derivative action on December 15, 2008, for failure to allege demand futility with the required specificity. The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the court set January 23, 2009 as the deadline for amending the complaint. Now before the court is plaintiff's administrative motion for an extension of time to file the second amended complaint, or in the alternative, for an order dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. Defendant Autodesk, Inc., opposes the motion. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the request for an extension in part and DENIES it in part, and DENIES the alternative motion for a dismissal without prejudice and without leave to amend. The court will extend the deadline two weeks, to February 6, 2009. If no amended complaint is filed by that date, the court will dismiss the action with prejudice. In the alternative, plaintiffs may waive amendment, rest on the first amended complaint, and request dismissal with prejudice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending completion of a books and records examination of Autodesk, Inc. pursuant to Delaware Corporations Code 220. The motion is noticed for hearing on February 25, 2009. In its opposition to plaintiff's administrative motion for an extension of time to file the second amended complaint, Autodesk indicated that it opposes the motion for a stay. The court sees no reason for further briefing, and DENIES the motion. Plaintiff has established neither that she is entitled to a stay under the circumstances of this case, nor that the information she seeks will enable her to allege demand futility in a subsequent amended complaint. The February 25, 2009 hearing date is hereby VACATED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?