Free Motion to Consolidate Cases - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00091-GMS Document 4 Filed O3/13/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MARK LEVY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 06-517 GMS
)
ROBERT J. THERRIEN and )
BROOKS AUTOMATION, INC., )
)
Defendants. ) Q
ARON ROSENBERG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
ROBERT J. THERRIEN, ) C.A. No. 07-091 GMS
)
p Defendant, )
)
— and - )
)
BROOKS AUTOMATION, IN C., )
)
Nominal Defendant. )
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION
WHEREAS these two actions concern the same events and the allegations made by
the plaintiffs are identical, the only difference being the content and timing of the pre-suit
demands made by the respective plaintiffs (paras. 14 and 15 in the respective complaints),

Case 1 :07-cv-00091-GMS Document 4 Filed O3/13/2007 Page 2 of 3
IT IS HEREBY STIPULAT ED AND AGREED, subject to the approval and order of
the Court, as follows: I
l. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), these two actions are consolidated for all
purposes.
2. From the date of this order, for the convenience of the Court and the parties,
all papers filed in the actions consolidated by this order shall be filed only in and under C.A.
No. 07-091 GMS (i.e., in Rosenberg), which shall be considered the "lead" case.
3. Also for the convenience of the Court and counsel, to avoid re—filing and
duplication, the motions to dismiss which have been filed by the defendants (D.I. ’s 8 and 10)
in C.A. No. 06-517 GMS (i.e., in Levy) and the briefing which has been filed on those
motions (D.I.’s 9, ll, 14, 15 and 16), will be considered as having been filed in Rosenberg,
C.A. No. 07-091 GMS, so that the decision thereon and the time to respond thereafter will
apply with equal force to both actions, with the one exception next noted below.
4. Defendant Brooks Automation, Inc. asserted an inadequacy of demand defense
against plaintiff Levy, its defense set forth in Arg. II of its opening brief in support of its
motion to dismiss (D.I. 10). Defendant Brooks Automation, Inc. does not assert that defense
against plaintiff Aron Rosenberg.
5. The firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, of New York, New York, is
designated as lead counsel in these consolidated actions andthe firm of Rosenthal, Monhait
& Goddess, P.A., of Wilmington, Delaware, is designated as liaison counsel.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00091-G|\/IS Document 4 Filed O3/13/2007 Page 3 of 3
/s/ Jeffrey S. Goddess /s/ Brian C. Ralston
Jeffrey S. Goddess (No. 630) Arthur L. Dent (No. 2491)
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. Brian C. Ralston (N0. 3770)
919 Market Street Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
P. O. Box 1070 Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 1313 N. Market Street
j [email protected] " P. O. Box 951
(302) 656-4433 Wilmington, DE 19801
Attorney for Plaintiffs [email protected]
[email protected]
(302) 984-6000
Attorneys for Robert J. Therrien
/s/ Matthew F. Davis
J. Travis Laster (No. 3514)
Matthew F. Davis (No. 4696)
Abrams & Laster LLP
Brandywine Plaza West
1521 Concord Pike, Suite 303
Wilmington, DE 19803
[email protected]
[email protected]
(302) 778-1000
Attorneys for Brooks Automation, Inc.
SO ORDERED this day of , 2007.
United States District Judge
3