Opinion
Case No. C 11-04493-RS
10-04-2011
SCOTT OZAKI, Derivatively on Behalf of ORACLE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, SAFRA A. CATZ, JEFFREY O. HENLEY, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, H. RAYMOND BINGHAM, DONALD L. LUCAS, JEFFREY S. BERG, BRUCE R. CHIZEN, HECTOR GARCIA-MOLINA, NAOMI O. SELIGMAN, and GEORGE H. CONRADES, Defendants, -and- ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant.
ROBBINS UMEDA LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264) KEVIN A. SEELY (199982) CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS (205510) Attorneys for Plaintiff Scott Ozaki MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PHILIP T. BESIROF PHILIP T. BESIROF Attorneys for defendants Lawrence J. Ellison, Safra A. Catz, Jeffrey O. Henley, Michael J. Boskin, H. Raymond Bingham, Donald L. Lucas, Jeffrey S. Berg, Bruce R. Chizen, Hector Garcia-Molina, Naomi O. Seligman, George H. Conrades, and Oracle Corporation
ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264)
KEVIN A. SEELY (199982)
CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS (205510)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Scott Ozaki
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION, SET DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO DESIGNATE OR FILE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RESPONSIVE MOTIONS
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, Plaintiff Scott Ozaki ("Plaintiff") commenced the above-captioned derivative action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by filing a complaint derivatively on behalf of the Oracle Corporation ("Oracle" or the "Company") against certain of its current and former officers and directors (collectively with nominal defendant Oracle, "Defendants") alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment (the "Demand Refused Action");
WHEREAS, all Defendants in the Demand Refused Action have been served with the summons and complaint. The deadline for the personally-served defendants to respond to the complaint in the Demand Refused Action is October 03, 2011, the deadline for Oracle to respond is October 4, 2011, and the deadline for the defendants who waived service through counsel to respond is November 14, 2011;
WHEREAS, a related consolidated derivative action styled In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-10-03392-RS, arising out of similar events and involving some of the same defendants, is currently pending before this Court (the "Demand Futility Action");
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, this Court issued an order relating, but not consolidating, the Demand Refused and Demand Futility Actions (the "Order");
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order, the Demand Refused Action was reassigned to this Court, and the Court scheduled an initial case management conference in the Demand Refused Action for December 8, 2011;
WHEREAS, given the unique circumstances of this case, the parties have been discussing the benefits of conducting further discussions regarding the claims alleged and defenses thereto, and, in the interest of efficiency and economy, the parties request a temporary stay of this action. The parties will continue to be mindful to use their best efforts to coordinate any activity in the Demand Futility Action with this Demand Refused Action, to the extent appropriate;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, subject to the Court's approval:
1. The Demand Refused Action, including all proceedings and deadlines, shall be stayed for at least 60 days from the entry of an order on this stipulation.
2. The parties agree that no response by any defendant to the complaint shall be required pending entry by the Court of the proposed order granting the stay of this action.
3. After 60 days have passed following the entry of an order on this stipulation, Plaintiff may provide written notice at any time to Defendants of his intention to proceed with this action.
4. Following written notice of Plaintiff's intention to proceed with the action, unless the parties agree otherwise and appropriately provide notice to the Court, Plaintiff shall have 30 days to either amend his complaint or give notice to Defendants that the original complaint shall remain the operative complaint. Defendants shall respond to the complaint within 45 days after service of an amended complaint or notice regarding the operative complaint. In the event that Defendants file any motion directed at the amended or operative complaint, Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed within 45 days of any such motion, and any reply brief shall be filed within 21 days of the opposition.
5. As long as this action is stayed, the parties will file with the Court a brief update of the status of this action, at least every 90 days.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
BRIAN J. ROBBINS
KEVIN A. SEELY
CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS
KEVIN A. SEELY
Attorneys for Plaintiff Scott Ozaki
I, Kevin A. Seely, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION, SET DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO DESIGNATE OR FILE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON RESPONSIVE MOTIONS. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Philip T. Besirof has concurred in this filing.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
PHILIP T. BESIROF
PHILIP T. BESIROF
Attorneys for defendants Lawrence J. Ellison,
Safra A. Catz, Jeffrey O. Henley, Michael J.
Boskin, H. Raymond Bingham, Donald L.
Lucas, Jeffrey S. Berg, Bruce R. Chizen,
Hector Garcia-Molina, Naomi O. Seligman,
George H. Conrades, and Oracle Corporation
* * * ORDER * * *
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE