UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
April 17, 2009
STEPHEN LOWE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND, OPPENHEIMERFUNDS, INC., OPPENHEIMERFUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC., BRIAN F. WRUBLE, DAVID K. DOWNES, MATTHEW P. FINK, PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, MARY F. MILLER, JOEL W. MOTLEY, RUSSELL S. REYNOLDS, JR., MARY ANN TYNAN, JOSEPH M. WIKLER, PETER I. WOLD, BRIAN W. WIXTED, CLAYTON K. YEUTER, JOHN V. MURPHY, ROBERT G. GALLI, KENNETH A. RANDALL, EDWARD V. REGAN, RONALD H. FIELDING, DANIEL G. LOUGHRAN, SCOTT COTTIER, TROY E. WILLIS, RICHARD STEIN, AND MARK S. VANDEHEY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
Action filed March 23, 2009
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND RESCHEDULING OF INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
(N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-2, 6-3, and 7-12)
Dep't: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
WHEREAS, plaintiff, through his counsel, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint"), against among others, Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund, OppenheimerFunds, Inc., OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., John V. Murphy, Brian W. Wixted, Ronald H. Fielding, Daniel G. Loughran, Scott S. Cottier, Troy E. Willis, Richard Stein, and Mark S. Vandehey (collectively the "Defendants") in the above-referenced matter on or about March 23, 2009; the Northern District of California against the Defendants, namely: Rivera v. Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund, No. 09-cv-00567 SI (filed February 6, 2009),
WHEREAS, to date, similar purported class action complaints have been filed in Tackmann v. Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund, No. 09-cv-1184-SI (filed March 18, 2009), and Milhem v. Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund, No. 09-cv-1414 VRW (filed March 31, 2009);
WHEREAS, the plaintiffs and their respective counsel have yet to file any motions for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), including Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933, U.S.C. § 77z-1; subject to the PSLRA and Defendants presently intend to file motions to dismiss which would trigger a stay of discovery under the PSLRA; effort by the parties to this action and the Court prior to the filing of motion(s) for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and the possible consolidation of this Complaint with other proceedings pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties to this action have agreed, subject to the Court's approval, to a continuance of the Case 25 Management Deadlines and an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint or any superseding Complaint; and
WHEREAS, the Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws that are
WHEREAS, in order to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources or
WHEREAS, this Stipulation and Order is without prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights, arguments or defenses otherwise available to the parties to this action, including, but not limited to, any challenge to the assertion of personal jurisdiction over one or more of the Defendants.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:
1. Defendants shall have no obligation to respond to the individual Complaint filed in the above-captioned action;
2. Lead Plaintiff shall have forty five (45) days after entry of the order appointing Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint ("Consolidated Amended Complaint");
3. Defendants shall file and serve answer(s) or motion(s) to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint within forty five (45) days after service of the Consolidated Amended Complaint;
4. Lead Plaintiffs shall have forty five (45) days after service of the answer(s) or motion(s) to dismiss to file and serve any opposition or objection(s) to said answer(s) or motion(s) to dismiss;
5. Defendants shall file and serve replies in further support of their motion(s) to dismiss no later than thirty (30) days after service of any opposition by Lead Plaintiff; and
6. Defendants agree to waive service of process. This stipulation shall not be deemed to waive any defense other than as to sufficiency of service of process.
Dated: April 17, 2009
DANIEL C. GIRARD MATTHEW L. LARRABEE JONATHAN K. LEVINE One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111-3513 Telephone: 415.262.4500 Facsimile: 415.262.4555 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendants.
AARON M. SHEANIN CHRISTINA H. C. SHARP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Attorneys for Individual and OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA Representative Plaintiff, MUNICIPAL FUND; STEPHEN LOWE OPPENHEIMERFUNDS, INC.; OPPENHEIMERFUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC.; JOHN V. MURPHY; BRIAN W. WIXTED; RONALD H. FIELDING; DANIEL G. LOUGHRAN; SCOTT COTTIER; TROY E. WILLIS; RICHARD STEIN, and MARK S. VANDEHEY.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
DATED: _____________________ ______________________________
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON
Motion hearing reserved for 11/6/09@ 9 a.m., case management conference continued to 11/6/09 at 2:30 p.m.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.