UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 5, 2010
THE ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.; THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.; FITCH, INC.; AND FITCH RATINGS, INC., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Susan Illston
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL RULE 7-4(b)
Complaint filed: August 17, 2009 18
First Amend. Complaint filed: March 19, 2010
Plaintiff Anschutz Corporation ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("DBSI") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: action, on March 19, 2010; to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on April 13, 2010; to transfer was denied, DBSI would have 30 days to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's operative pleading; common law fraud claims against DBSI in connection with auction-rate securities ("ARS") -- financial instruments that pay interest at rates set a periodic auctions; engaged in a comprehensive scheme to defraud Plaintiff by (a) failing to disclose material facts about ARS and (b) manipulated the market for ARS in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and in violation of Sections 25500, 25501 and 25504.1 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, which also allegedly constitutes common law fraud; increase in the page limit set by Local Rule 7-4(b) for DBSI's opening brief and Plaintiff's opposition to DBSI's' motion to dismiss, but that the page limit for DBSI's reply brief shall remain 15 pages (exclusive of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); acting through their respective counsel, subject to this Court's approval, as follows: or before May 13, 2010, shall not exceed 35 pages in length (exclusive of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), asserting 11 causes of
WHEREAS, the Court issued its order denying DBSI's motion to transfer venue pursuant
WHEREAS, the parties previously stipulated and the Court ordered that if DBSI's motion
WHEREAS, the FAC asserts federal securities fraud, California securities fraud, and
WHEREAS, the FAC alleges over the course of 271 paragraphs and 87 pages that DBSI
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the FAC's scope and complexity warrant a modest
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and DBSI,
1. DBSI's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, which is due on
2. Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to DBSI's motion to dismiss shall not exceed 35 pages (exclusive of title pages, indices of cases, table of contents, and exhibits).
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.