Document 110
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3 4
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) SPECTER SPECTER EVANS & MANOGUE, P.C. The 26th Floor Koppers Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Tel: (412) 642-2300 Fax: (412) 642-2309 E-mail: [email protected] Michael D. Braun (167416) BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 109 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 442-7755 Fax: (310) 442-7756 E-mail: service(a)braunlawgroup.com Ira Spiro (67641) SPIRO MOSS BARNESS, LLP 11377 West Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Tel: (310) 235-2468 Fax: (310) 235-2456 E-mail: irallV.spiromoss.com Janet Lindner Spielberg (221926) LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 392-8801 Fax: (310) 278-5938 E-mail: [email protected]
5
6 7 8
9
10 11 12 13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Attorneys/or Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
SIDNEY SCHOLL and FELTON A. ) SPEARS, JR., on behalf of themselves and ) ) all others similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (aka) WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK); FIRST) AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT, a Delaware ) ) corporation; and LEl\TDER'S SERVICE, ) INC., ) ) Defendants. )
CASE NO.: 5:08-CV-00868 (RMW) CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. BRAUN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DATE: TIME: CTRM: August 15, 2008 9:00 a.m. 6, 4th Floor
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. BRAUN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO.: 5:08-CV-00868 (RMW)
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3
I, Michael D. Braun declare as follows:
1.
I am a principal with the Braun Law Group, P.C., co-counsel for Plaintiffs in this
action. I am a member of the California Bar and am admitted to practice in this District. 2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Points
4
5
6
and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings.
3.
Attached as exhibits are true and correct copies of the following: Exhibit A: ExhibitB: Notice of Tag-Along Action (February 15,2008) MDL Docket No. 1919 Joint Preliminary Report (May 27,2008) In re Washington Mutual,
7
8
9
Inc., 2:08-md-1919 MJP, USDC Western District of Washington at
Seattle Exhibit C: Motion of Washington Mutual for Transfer of Actions to the Western District of Washington Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings Briefin Support of Washington Mutual's Motion for Transfer of Actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
10
11
12 Exhibit D:
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ExhibitE:
Wertz v. Washington Mutual Bank, et. al,34-2008-00000717-CU-BCGDS, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United states that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 11 th day of July, 2008.
lSI Michael D. Braun MICHAEL D. BRAUN
1
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. BRAUN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS CASE NO.: 5:08-CV·00868 (RMW)
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 2 of 6
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
)
IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE AND "ERISA" LITIGATION
) ) ) )
MDL Docket No. 1919
NOTICE OF TAG-ALONG ACTION
1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1407 and Rules 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Rules"), Defendant Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") hereby notifies the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") of the pendency of the following tag-along action to the above-captioned matter:
Plaintiffs:
Felton A. Spears, Jr. and Sidney Scholl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
Defendants: Washington Mutual, Inc.; First American eAppraiseIT; and Lender's Services, Inc. District: Case No.: Judge:
Northern District of California 08-cv·00868-HRL Judge Howard R. Lloyd, U.S. Magistrate Judge
2.
On November 28,2007, WaMu moved this Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 and Rule 7.2 of the MOL Rules, for an Order transferring seven similar actions, listed in
the Schedule of Actions, to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge for
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 3 of 6
2
the Western District ofWashington~ for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (the "Motion"). Oral argument with respect to WaMu~s Motion was held before the Panel in Phoenix, Arizona during the January 30, 2008 Hearing Session. 3. By Notice ofTag-Along Action dated December 5, 2007, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Alexander v. Waskington Mutual, Inc., et
al., No. C07-1906 RSM (W.D. Wash., filed November 29, 2007).
4.
By Notice ofTag-Along Action dated December 12,2007, WaMu
promptly notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Mitchell v. Washington Mutual,
Inc., et al., No. C07-1938 MJP (W.D. Wash., filed December 5, 2007).
5.
By Notice ofTag~Along Action dated December 21, 2007~ WaMu
promptly notified the Panel of the following tag~along action: Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc.,
etal., No. C07-l997 RAJ (W.D. Wash., filed December 13, 2007).
6.
By Notice ofTag~Along Action dated January 3,2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc.. et
ai., No. C07-2025 RSM (W.D. Wash., filed December 18, 2007).
7. By Notice ofTag-Along Action dated January 3, 2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Garber v. Washington Mutual. Inc., et al., No. 07 Civ. 11422 (S.D.N.Y., filed December 20, 2007). 8. By Notice ofTag~Along Action dated January 3, 2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et
al., No. C07-2055 MJP (W.D. Wash., filed December 21,2007).
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 4 of 6
3
9.
By Notice of Tag-Along Action dated January 3,2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel ofthe following tag-along action: Marra v. Washington Mutual} Inc., et al., No. C07-2076 MJP (W.O. Wash., filed December 27,2007). 10. By Notice of Tag-Along Action dated January 9,2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Slater v. Washington Mutual, Inc.. et al., No. C08-0005 RAJ (W.O. Wash., filed January 4, 2008). 11. By Notice of Tag-Along Action dated January 25,2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Procida v. Killinger. et at., No. 08 CV 00565 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 23,2008). 12. By Notice of Tag-Along Action dated January 25, 2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Ryan v. Killinger, et aZ., No. COS-009S TSZ (W.O. Wash., filed January 18, 2008). 13. By Notice of Tag-Along Action dated February 8,2008, WaMu promptly
notified the Panel of the following tag-along action: Wertz v. Washington Mutual Bank. et aZ., No. 2:08-cv-00317-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal., filed February 8, 2008).1 14. Plaintiffs Felton A. Spears, Jr. and Sidney Scholl filed a complaint, suing
on behalfof themselves and all others similarly situated, on or about February 8,2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Spears Action"). A courtesy copy of the complaint in this action is included with this Notice of Tag-Along Action.
Although the Wertz action was originally filed in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, on January 9,2008, Defendants timely removed the Wertz action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 8, 2008.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 5 of 6
·
4
.-
15.
Like the other eighteen actions pending in federal district court, the Spears
.Action asserts claims arising from an alleged conspiracy to inflate appraisal valuations on loans WaMu originated. 16. The complaint in the Spears Action relies on a complaint filed on
November 1, 2007 by the New York Attorney General against First American Corporation and First American eAppraiseIT, which alleges that those two companies conspired to inflate appraisal values ofproperty for which WaMu originated mortgage loans. Sixteen ofthe eighteen other actions subject to WaMu's motion also explicitly premise their complaints on the allegations in the New York Attorney General's complaint,2 and all ofthe complaints in the eighteen actions were filed after the filing of the New York Attorney General's complaint and pertain to the quality ofWaMu's mortgage portfolio. 17. The allegations in the Spears Action, along with the eighteen other actions
currently the subject ofWaMu's Motion pending before the Panel, raise similar claims and will involve similar complex and disputed issues of law and fact. 18. For the reasons more fully discussed in WaMu's pending Motion, its
supporting Brief, and its Reply Brief, the transfer and coordination or consolidation of these actions, including the Spears Action, to the Western District of Washington would conserve valuable judicial resources, prevent the risk ofpotentially conflicting or inconsistent judicial decisions, and serve the convenience of the parties, the witnesses, the judiciary and counsel in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Absent pretrial coordination or consolidation, there would be duplicative and unnecessary pretrial proceedings and discovery that would burden the parties, the witnesses, the judiciary and counsel.
2
The complaints in the Mitchell and Rosenblatt actions focus instead on WaMu's allegedly risky mortgage portfolio, and WaMu's allegedly "blind focus" on building loan volume.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-2
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 6 of 6
5
19.
Accordingly, WaMu respectfully requests that the Panel transfer the
Spears Action, along with the eighteen other actions currently the subject ofWaMu's Motion and any other tag-along actions that may be filed, to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Dated: February 15, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
By: -t~~U(!J~ Barry Mary David 011 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2000 (212) 455-2502 (facsimile) [email protected]
"'
_
Counsel for Defendants Washington Mutual, Inc., Washington Mutual Bank, and Susan Richter; and for the limited purpose of participating in proceedings before the Panel, Defendants Kerry K. Killinger; David C. Schneider; Thomas W. Casey; Stephen J. Rotella; John F. Woods; James B. Corcoran; and Daryl D. David.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 1 of 17
EXHIBITB
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 2 of 17
1
The Honorable M~ha J. Pechri:J.an
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ATSEATILE
10
IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL. INC. 11 SECURITffiS. DBRlVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION 12
) ) No. ) ) ) )
)
2:08-md~1919
MJP
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT
13
14 IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL. INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 15 This Docmnent Relates to: ALL CASES 16 17 IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC. 18 DERIVATNE LmGATION
) ) Lead Case No. COS-0387 MJP ) ) )
)
)
) ) Lead Case No. C07-1826 MJP ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. C08-0566 MJP ) ) ) ) )
)
19 This Document Relates to: ALL DEMAND FUTILE ACTIONS
20
21 IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL. INC. 22 DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 23 This Document Relates to: ALL DEMAND MADE ACTIONS 24 25 IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL. INC. 26 ERISA LITIGATION 27 This Document Relates to: ALL CASES
)
) Lead Case No. C07-1874 MJP )
) ) ) )
28
JOINT PREL!MINARYREPORT (No. 2;68~md-o.l919 MJP)
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 3 of 17
1 2
Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu" or the "Comp8nyj; Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board ("Lead Securities Plaintiftj; Faruqi & Faruqi. LLP and Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
3 (collectiVelY,"Lead Demand Futile Derivative Counselj; the Law Offices Bemard M. Gross. P.C.
4 ("Lead Demand Made Derivative COUJlSe1j; Hagens Bennan Sobol Shapiro LLP and Keller
5 Rohrback LLP (collectively, "Lead ERISA Counselj; FiIst American COIpOmtion; eAppmiseIT; 6 aud the Individual Defendants! jointly submit this Preliminary Report pursuant to the Com's 7 Apri118, 2008 Order Scheduling Initial Conference.
8
9
1.
Nature and CompJeDty of the Cue Securities Litigation: The consolidated securities class action (the "Securities
10 Case'') is brought on behalf of WaMu investoIs against the Company, certain of its cmrent and
11 former officers and directors, and (subject to :fu.rtb.er analysis and investigation by Lead Securities
12 Plaintiff) may also be brought against WaMu's auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, and the
13 investment banks that underwrote WaMu's public offerings during the relevant time period,
14 among·othem. Lead Securities plaintiff anticipates that its consolidated complaint (the
15 "Consolidated Securities Complaint"), which will be filed no later than August 5,2008, pursuant 16 to the Court's May 7, 2008 Order, will assert at least two distinct sets of claims:
17
First, Lead Securities plainti:tf anticipates that the Consolidated Securities
18 Complaint will assert fraud-based claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
19 "'Exchange Act") against those defendants who are alleged to have made materially false and
20 misleading statements regarding, among other things, WaMu's financial results, accomrting
21 practices and home-mortgage lending business, including the Company's underw:riting and
22
23
apprais8.1 practices for these mortgages, during the class period. Lead Securities plaintiff also
anticipates that the Consolidated Securities Complaint will assert "control person" claims under
24 Section 20(a) oftbe Exchange Act against various principals ofWaMu, including certain ofthe
25 26!
27 28
For purposes ofthis response, Thomas W. Casey, James B. CorooIan, Daryl D. David, Anne V. FatreD, Stephen E. Frank, K.eoy K. Killinger. Thomas C. Leppert. Charles M. Lillis, Pbillip D. Matthews, Regina T. Montoya, Michael K. M11rphy, Deanna W. Oppenheimer, Matgaret Osmer-McQuade, ~ Pugh. William. O. Reed, Jr., Stephen Rotella, David C. Schne.ider, Orin. C. Smith, James 1L Stever, Willis B. Wood, Jr., and John F. Woods are collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants "
Mar
JOJNTPRBLIMIN.ARYREPORT
(No. 2:08-md..Q1919 MJP)-1
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 4 of 17
1 Individual Defendatrts, who were allegedly in a position to control those defendants who made the
2 allegedly:false and misleading statements to the market. Second, Lead Securities plaintiff
3 anticipates that the Consolidated Securities Complaint will assert strict liability and negHgence-
4 based claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the '«Securities Act") against those defendants who
S are alleged to be statu.torily respODBible"under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) oftb.e Securities Act for
6 the alleged materially untrue statements and omissions that were allegedly made in <5onnection
7 with WaMu's public offerings during the relevant time period.
S Derivative Litigation: The shareholder derivative claims against the Company
9 (collectively, the "Derivative Case") have been consolidated into two separate tracks, consisting of 10 those plaintiffs who contend that making a demand on the Company's board of directOIs (the 11 "Board") prior to filing suit would have been futile (the 'nemand Futile Plaintiffs'') and those who
12 made apie-suit demand (the "Demand Made Plaintiffii''). Both sets of derivative plaintif& pUtport
13 to bring claims on behalf ofWaMu against certain ofits officers and directors for breach of
14 fiduciary duty (and, in certain instances, against defendant First AmericanleAppraiselT for
15 allegedly aiding and abetting breaches offiduciary duty) relating to alleged inflation ofthe
16 Company's mortgage underwriting and loan origination volume, reserving practices, a:ppmisaI 17 practices, and SEC filings.
18 WaMu and the Demand Futile Plaintiffs submit that the necessity of a pre-suit
19 demand on the Board is a threshold question that must be resolved prior to the merits ofthe
20 Derivative Case. Demand Made plaintiffs disagree with that position, asserting that they tendered
21
proper shareholder demands, the Boant rejected those demands, and that the Demand Made
22 plaintiffs should proceed without any stay or abatement WaMu and the Individual Defendants
23 deny that demand was "refused,u and submit that the Com should fiJ:st ~e whether demand
24 was required.
25
26
ERISA Litigation: The consolidated ERISA class action (the "ERISA Casej alleges breaches of tiducia:ry duty under the Employee R.etirement Ince>m:e Security Act of 1974
("ERISAj against the Cottlpany and ~ defendants alleged to be fiduciaries of the WaMu
27
28 Savings Plan (the "Plan''), an ERISA-regulated. defined contribution plan. The ERISA Case arises
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT (No. 2:0s..md-01919 MJP)-2
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 5 of 17
lout ofthe alleged failure ofthe ERISA defendants to manage the Plan's investment in WaMu
. 2 stock prudently and loyally during the proposed class period. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that
3 the ERISA defendants continued to offer WaMu stock as a Plan investment option, and invest
4 Plan assets in WaMu stock: when it no longer was prodent to do so because of SeriOUB
5 mismanagement, and dire financial circumstances affecting the Company. The ERISA Case is
6 brought as a class acJ:ion on behalf ofthe Plan under, inter alia, ERlSA § S02(a)(2), for losses to
7 8 9
the Plan, and the Plan's participants and beneficiaries.
pefendants' Position: WaMu and the Individual Defendants named in the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Cases deny the material allegations in the complaints previously
lOon file with the Court, and they expect to move to dismiss any consolidated complaints making the 11 same or similar allegations. Defendants submit that efficiency will be enhanced by sequencing
12 motion practice, such that the Court addresses the sufficiency of the Consolidated Securities 13 Complaint before taming to the pleadings in the other cases. Defendants submit that the Court's
14 raling on the legal sufficiency ofthe factual allegations in the Consolidated Securities CompIaint 15
will provide guidance to the parties and will allow for streamlined motion practice in the
16 remaining cases.
17
18
2.
ADR Method
The parties' preferred ADR method is mediation (at the appropriate time, as
. 19 discussed below). 20
21
3.
ADR Timing
The parties for each ofthese respective acJ:ions believe that the appropriate time for
22 mediation likely.wiIl be at some point after the consolidated complaints have been filed, and 23 possibly after the parties have had sufficient discovery to evaluate fully the strength and
24 weaknesses oftheir respective cases.
2S
26 27 28
4.
Deadline for Joining Additional Parties
Lead Securities Plaintiff; the Demand Futile pla.intif:fS and the Demand Made
pJaiIrtiffs propose that the deadline for joining additional parties in then-respective cases be sixty (60) days prior to the close of discovery. Lead ERISA Counsel propose that the deadline for
. JOINT PRm.IMINARYREPORT (No. 2:08-md-01919 MJP)-3
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 6 of 17
1 joining additional parties in the ERISA Case be the close of discovery. WaMu and the Individual 2 3 Defendants propose that the deadline for joining additional parties in all cases be coincident with the deadlines for filing consolidated complaints.
4
5
S.
Deadline for Amending Pleadings
Pursuant to the Court's May 7, 2008 Order in the Securities Case, Lead Securities
6 PJaintiffwiI1 file iUJ Consolidated Secmities Complaint on or before August 5, 2008. Lead
7 Securities Plaintiffproposes that the deadline for the amendment of the pleadings in the Securities
8 9 Case should be no later than thirty (30) days after the close of discovery. Demand Futile Plaintiffs propose to undertake discovery on demand futility prior to
10 filing a consolidated complaint. Defendants contend that such disoovexy is not appropriate, but 11 they and Demand Futile Plaintiffs agree that the issue of Demand Futile Plaintiffs' entitlement to
12 discovery regarding demand futility should be resolved prior to the filing oftheir consolidated 13 complaint. Defendwts and Demand Futile plaintiffs agree to meet and confer, and Demand Futile
14 Plaintiffs propose to file a motion regarding this :issue-if at all--by August I, 2008. and will file 15 a consolidated complaint by the later of (a) thirty (30) days afterthe close of any Court-ordered
16 discovery regarding demand futility; (b) thirty (30) days after the Court's denial of discovery 17 regarding demand futility; or (0) September 5,2008. 18 Demand Made plaintiffs propose to file a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.
19 Demand Made Plaintiffs take the position that neither the Private Securities Litigation RefOIm 20 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B) ("PSLRA j, nor FRCP 9(b) applies to the Derivmive Case, and 21 22 23 24 25
that the breach of fiduciary duty claims are separate and distinct from the claims asserted in the
Securities and ERISA Cases. Accordingly, Demand Made Plaintiffs believe that their action should proceed without regard to the status of the motions to dismiss any other case. Lead ERISA Counsel propose that no later than July 5, 2008, defendants shall
produce core ERISA documents and infor.mation that will enable plaintiffs to identify accurately
26 the specific peISons who serve as Plan fiduciaries during the class period, or otherwise infonn 27 28
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT (No. 2:08-md~01919 MJP) - 4
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 7 of 17
1 .2 3
plaintiffs ofthe identity ofsuch personi; and that plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint on
August 5,2008. orwitbin 30 days ofthe receipt of the documents identified above, whichever is later. Lead ERISA Counsel further propose that the deadline for amending the pleadings in the
4 ERISA case should be the close of discovery. Lead ERISA Counsel further propose that the
5 ERISA Case should proceed without regard to the status ofmotions to dismiss in the Securities
6 and Derivative Cases as the ERISA Case asserts fiduciaIy ~h claims under ERISA that Lead
7 ERISA Counsel submit are not governed by the PSLRA or PRCP 9(b). Defendants submit that motion practice should be sequenced such that the Court addresses the sufficiency ofthe Consolidated Securities Complaint before turning to the pleadings
8
9
lOin the other cases, and that the deadline by which consolidated pleadings should be filed in the 11 Derivative and ERISA Cases should be set accordingly. Regardless ofthe schedule, defendants
12 submit that the consolidated pleading filed in the Derivative Case should be filed by the Demand
13
Futile Plaintiffs (rather than the Demand Made Pla:intiffi:J), and that defendants' motion to dismiM
14 for failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Board be ruled upon first. Once the Court has roled 15 on the question of whether a pre-suit demand was required, one set ofplainti:.ffS can prosecute any
16 claims that remain.
17 18
19
6.
TimeJine for Class Certification Lead Securities Plaintiffproposes that its motion for class certification should be
due after the close of discovery, consistent with precedent concluding that evidence developed
20 through fact discoveIY can be important to class certification issues. 3 Class certification is not
These documents are as follows: (1) docomen.ts that identify the persons who from January 1.2006 through the present serve or served on (a) the Human Resources Committee ofthe Board ofDirectoIs of 22 WaMu, (b) the Plan Administrative Committee for the WaMu Savings Plan, and (c) the Plan Investment 23 Committee for the WaMu Savings Plan (collectively. "the Committees"); (2) and minutes and/or resolutions ofth.e Committees and/or subcommiffees tb.ereofthat pertain to the WaMu Savings Plan and 24 show the appointment or removal ofPlan fidu.ciaries or olherwise demonsfmte the fiduciary fimction ofany ofthe Commitrees.
3 See FRep 23 (2003 amendments). Advisory Committee's note ("The 'as soon as practicable' exaction [of the old Rule 23] neither retlects prevailing prlWtice nor captures the many v&!id reaso~ that 26 may justify deferring the initial certification decision .·.. Time may be needed to gather info~on necessmy to make the certification decision}; see also. e.g·· Hurley v. u.s. Healthworks Medical Group of 27 Wasko 2006 WL 1188994. at *4-5 (R.D. Wash. Jun. 27. 2006) (finding plaintiffs' motion for class 28certificaiion, which was filed after the close of discovery, timely under Rule 23).
21
2
25
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT (No. 2.1l8-md-01919 MJP) - 5
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 8 of 17
1 2 3
applicable in the Derivative Case. Lead ERISA Counsel propose that they will file their motion
for class certi:lication by January 9, 2009, or ninety (90) days after the Court rules on ERISA
motions to dismiss, if any, whichever is later. Defendants propose to meet and confer with respect
4 to ~e process for discovery on and briefing of class certification issues upon the Court's
5 resolution of defendants' motions to dismiss
6
7 8
9
7.
Discovery Plan
A.
Dates for FRCP ConferenceIPisclosures: PuIsuant to the PSLRA,
discovery in the Securities Case will "be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court :finds upon the motion ofany party that particularized discovezy is necessary to
10 preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party." Lead Securities Plaintiffproposes II
tha~ absent a ruling by the Court, discovery in the Securities Case commence immediately after
12 the Court has ruled on any motions to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Complaint. Lead 13 Securities Plaintiff further proposes that, consistent with the Court's May 7, 2008 Order, the :initial
14 FRCP 26(f) conference and the initial PRCP 26(a) disclosures in the Securities Case should occur
15 within thirty (30) days after the Court's decision on any motions to dismiss the Consolidated 16 Securities Complaint. 17 Demand Futile Plaintiffs propose to move this Court by August 1, 2008 regarding
18 their entiUement to discovery on the narrow issue of demand futility and otherwise propose that
19 FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures should occur within thirty (30) days after the Court's resolution of 20 the motion to dismiss the Derivative Case. Demand Made plaintiffs propose that the PRCP 26(f) 21 22 23 conference and FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures should oCCUIwithin thirty (30) days after the filing of their consolidated complaint Demand Made Plaintiffs fwtber propose that they will serve document requests upon defendants with the filing oftheir consolidated com.plain~ and that
24 defendants shall respond in accordance with the Federal Rules and shall place documents in a 25 depository to which aJ:I cases will have access at the appropriate time. Demand Made Plaintiffs
26 submit that they will not commence depositions ofwitnesses until resolution of defendants'
27
motion to dismiss.
28
JOINTPRBLIMINARYREPORT
(No. 2:08-m.d~1919 MJP)-6
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 9 of 17
1
Lead Demand Made Derivative Counsel propose that the PRCP 26(f) initial
2 conference and FRCP 26(a) initial disclosures should occur within thirty (30) days after the filing
3 of their consolidated complaint They will serve doClUIlent requests upon defendants with the 4
~ oftheir consolidated complaint and defendants shall respond in accordance with the Federal
5 Rules. Documents to be produeed shall be placed in a depository to which all cases will have
6 7
access at the apptoprlate time. Ifdetbndauts move in dismiss the Demand Made Derivative
Claims, Lead Demand Made Derivative COl1JlSel will not commence depositions ofwitn.esses until
8 resolution ofthe motion. 9 Lead ERISA Counsel state that the PSLRA does not apply to the ERISA action,
10 which asserts ERISA claims that are separate and distinct from the claims asserted in the securities 11 and derivative actions. Accordingly, Lead ERISA Counsel propose to proceed with discoveIy
12 Upon resolution ofERISA motions to dismiss, if any, in the phased manner disCUBsed below. Lead
13 ERISA Counsel propose that the initial FRCP 26(t) conference and FRCP 26(a) disclosures should
14 occurwitbin thirty (30) days after the Court's resolution ofERISA motions to dismiss, ifany.
15
. WaMu and the Individual Defendants believe that the most efficient, simplified and
16 logical course is for the Court to assess fust the legal sufficiency of the consolidated complaints in
17 each of the cases in tam, with discovery commencing uniformly on the date the last motion to
18 dismiss has been decided. WaMu and the Individual Defendants reserve the right to oppose
19 initiation of discovexy in the ERISA and Derivative Cases before a ruling on the motions to
20 dismiss the Securities Case, and to take discovexy on aU claims and defenses at issne.
21 B. Discovery TopicsIPhasing; Lead Securities PlaintiffbeIieves that discovery
22 will be needed on all subjects relevant to the allegations in its anticipated Consolidated Securities
23
Complaint, including, but not funited to the following topics: the underwriting of WaMu's loans;
24 the secu.ritization ofWaMu's loans; the appmisal of the properties 1Ulderlying WaMu's loans; the
25 various types of loans originated by WaMu and the procedures related to the origination of those
26 loans; the acco11Ilting for WaMu's home--mortgage loans, including how WaMu estabHshed its 27 reserves, valued the loans reported on its :financial statements, and reported its asscU and liabilities 28 associated with those loans; WaMu's intemal controls overfinancia1 reporting; WaMu's financial
JOINTPRELIMlNARYREPORT (No. 2:08-md-01919 MJP) -1
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 10 of 17
1 reporting; each defendant's involvement in the aforementioned activities, if any; class certification
2 issues; and damages.
3 Demand Futile Plaintiffs submit that additional topics for discovery include the
4 independence and good faith ofthe Board, and the actions ofdefendants First American and 5 eAppraiselT. Defendanm object to discoveJY on the question of whether a pre-suit demand was
6 required, but they and the Demand Futile Plaintiffs agree that the question ofwhether Demand 7 Futile Plaintiffs are entitled to discovezy on the question of demand fut:ility is a matter that should
8 be resolved prior to the filing of a consolidated complaint. Demand Futile Pla:iJrtiffil recognize the
9 need to coordinate overlapping discovery and cooperate with the other parties to the extent
10 poSSIble. 11 Demand Made PlaiIJti:ffs submit that additional discovery will be needed
12 concerning the Board's actions and knowledge with respect to the allegations of wrongdoing. 13 14 Demand Made Plaintiffs believe that the issues ofthe Boaxd's independence and good faith arise only in connection with the Board's alleged rejection of the demand made upon them and the issue
1S ofdefendan:ts' liability for the alleged wrongdoing. Recognizing the need to coordinate
16 overlapping discovery, Demand Made Plaintiffs submit tha1 they will fust depose non-overlapping
17 witnesses and then will coord:ina1e depositions ofwitnesses who are relevant to the Securities and
18 ERISA Cases to avoid duplicative depositions.
19 20 21 22 23 Lead ERISA Counsel note that the ERISA plaintiffs will take discovery on defendants' status as Plan fiduciaries; all~ged breach oftheir fiduciary duties, factors bearing on the alleged imprudence ofWaMu stock (including many of the factual areas germane to the
Securities and Derivative Cases as noted above); losses to the Plan allegedly caused by breaches
offiduciazy duties; and related fact and expert discovery. Lead ERISA Counsel recognize the
24 need to coordinate overlapping discovery in the ERISA, Securities, and Derivative. To facilitate 2S
this coordination. Lead ERISA Counsel propose that during the pendency ofthe PSLRA stay that
26 is applicable to the Securities Case, they will first serve written discovery in all relevant areas., 27 28 followed by depositions ofwitnesses that are specific to the ERISA Case. No depositions will be noticed on issues gennane to the Securities and Derivative Cases until the Court resolves the
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT
(No. 2:08-md"()1919 MJP) -
8
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 11 of 17
1 securities motion to dismiss; depositions will be cooi'dinated to avoid duplication. Lead ERiSA 2 Counsel note that this same approach to discovexy has been followed successfully in several other
3 litigations with parallel ERISA, securities, and derivative cases.
4
Counsel for all parties agree that expert discovery will be necessary in several
5
areas. The parties will have more insight into the natl1t'c and extent ofthe necessary discovexy
defendants' respective motions to ditnniss. C. Discoyery Limitations: Given the complexity of this litigation and its
6 after the filing ofC011Solidated complaints in each of the cases and after the Court has decided
7 8
9
anticipated scope, all plaintiffs believe that ce.rIain discovery in excess ofthe limits established in
10 certain of the Federal and Local Civil Rules is necessaty. While WaMu and the Individual 11 Defendants do not believe that discovery in excess ofthe established limits is necessary, all parties
12 agree to discuss these matteI8 in connection with the FRCP 26(1) conference, after the
13 consolidated complaint has been filed. The parties propose advising the Court ofany suggested
14 modificauOIlS as appropriate.
15
.
D.
Minimi2ation ofDiscoyeIy Expenses: The parties will work together in
16 good fi:dth to manage and limit all discovezy burdens and costs to the extent pOSSlole, including 17 coordinating document production and depositions when possible. 'The parties will hold meet and
18 confer conferences on a prompt basis after service of any party's objections to discovery requests,
19 and will work together in good faith to resolve any disputes.
20
E.
Other Orders: At this time, the parties do not contemplate any additional
21 orders that should be entered by the Court pursuant to FRep 26(c) or Local Rule CR 16(b) and 22 (e).
23
24
25
8.
Discovery Deadline
Considering, inter alia, the anticipated complexity and scope ofthe allegations at
issue, the substantial volume of documents anticipated to be produced (including from third
. 26 parties), the number of defendants, and the number of anticipated issues requiring expert 27 discovery, the parties propose the following schedule for the ~mpIetionof discovexy: 28
10INTPRELIMINARYREPQRT (No. 2:0Swmd-01919 MJP) - 9
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 12 of 17
.'
1
A.
Lead Securities Plaintiffproposes that discovery in the Securities Case
2 commence immediately after tb.e Court's decision on any motions to dismiss the Consolidated
3 Securities Complaint. Lead ERISA COlmSel propose that discovexy :in the ERISA Case commence 4 immediately after the Court'B decision on any motions to dismiss the consolidated ERISA 5 complaint, and be completed one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the trial date: WaMu and the 6 Individual Defendants propose that discovery should commence ~ediately after the CoUlt's 7 ruling on the sufficiency ofthe pleadings in the Securities, ERlSA and Derivative Cases, and 8 should be closely coordinated to prevent duplication and wmecessary expense.
9 B. Lead Securities plaintiff proposes that parties in the Securities Case will
10 substantially complete the production oftheir documents in response to initial discovery requests 11 one hundred 'tWenty (120) days after the Court's decision on any motions to dismiss the
12
Consolidated Securities Complain:t. Demand Futile Plaintiffs propose that they will substantially
13 complete the production of their documents in response to initial discovery requests one hundred 14 twenty (120) days afterthe Court's decision on any motions to dismiss their claims. WaMu and 15 the Individrial Defendants propose that the parties will substantially complete the production of
16 their documents in response to initial discovery requests one hundred twenty (120) days after the
11 Court's decision on the final motion to dismiss. 18 C.
The deadline for completion of fact discovery should be nine (9) months
19 after the deadline for the substantial completion ofthe production of docwnents. The deadline for
20 21
completion ofexpert discovery should be sixty (60) days afterthe completion of fact discovery.
9.
Pending Motions There are no motions currently pending before the Court.
22 23
24 25
10.
Bifureadon
At this time, the parties do not anticipate that bifurcation ofthe liability and
damages issues will be necessaty or useful.
26
27
28
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT (No. 2:08-m.d-01919 MJP) -10
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 13 of 17
1
2 3
11.
Pretrial Statemenu and Pretrial Order
At this time, the parties do n¢ believe that the.protrial statements and pretrial order
called for by Local Rules.CR 16(e), (h), (i), and (l),and 16.1 should be dispensed o~ in whole or
4 inpart.
5
12.
Date Case(s) Will Be Trial Ready
The parties are not in a position at tIm time to identify the sp~i1ic date that these
6
7 actions will be ready for tria1,. as the trial dates will depend, in large part, On the deadlines for
8 filing summ.atY judgme1lt motions, the amount oftimo necessary to address pre,.tiia! issues,
9 . including Daubert and in limine motions, and the nature of the issues in dispute. The parties 10 propose that the Court reconvene a status conference after disposition ofmotioils for class
11 certification and summary judgment to discuss trial dates for the three eases.
12
13.
Jury or Bench Trial
13
Lead Securities plaintiff elects trial by jUly. Demand Futile Plaintiffs and Demand
14 Made plaintiffs elect trial by jury. Lead ERISA Counsel elect a bench trial. ..
15 16 . 14.·
Number of Trial Days Required
The parties anticipate multi,.week trials in each of the Securities, Derivative and
17 ERISA Cases.
18
19
15.
Return to OrlgtnalDDtrJcu for Trial
The parties anticipate that each of the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Cases will
20 be tried in this District. 21 22 23
16.
Further SUggestions for-Simplffieation
The parties will work together at all times to Inake this litigation as efficient and
stream.Iined as possible.
24
2S
17.
Trial Counsel
See Appendix A.
26
27
18.
Companies Affiliated 'With the Parties and All Assodated Counsel
See Appendix B.
28
JOINTPRELIMlNARYREPORT
(No. Z:08-md..Q1919 MJP)-ll
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 14 of 17
1
19.
Related Cases
There are four shareholder derivative cases pending in Washington State Superior
2
3
Cou.rt, King County related to the above-captioned cases: Catholic Medical M"lSsion v. Killinger,
4 et ai., Case No. 07-2-36548-6, Breene v. Killinger, et aI., Case No. 07-241042-2, Gihh v.
5 Killinger, et al., Case No. 07-2-41044-9, and Brody v. First American Corp., et ai., Case No. 08-26 13425-3. The first three cases have been consolidated, In re Washington Mutual, Inc. King
7
8 9 lO
County Derivative Litigation, Lead Case :No. 07-2-36548-6, and all proceedings have been stayed
pending this Court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Case. The parties are
in the process ofnegotiating a stipulation to add the Brody action to the consolidated state court
docket and bring it within the purview ofthe stay.
l!
12 I
13
/
I
14 I
I
I
15
16 /
17 18 /
/
/
I
/
19 20 I
21
22 I
I
/
I
/
23
24 I
25
I
I
26 I
I
I
27
28 I
I
I
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT
(No. 2:0s..md.~1919 MJP) - 12
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 15 of 17
1 Dated this 27th day of May 2008.
2 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETI' LLP DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
3
4
5
6
By:
lsi Bmy R.. Ostmget Bmy R. OstIag~ro hoc vice) Mary Kay Vyski . (pro hac lIice)
425 LexingtonAvenue New York. New York 10017 Tel: ~212) 455-2700 212) 455-2502 Fax: [email protected] Email: [email protected] -and-
By:
lsi Steven P. Caplow
1201 Third Avenue, SUite 2200 Seattle. Washington 98101..3045 Tel: (206) 757-8108
Fax: (206) 757-7136
steveI1llDm [email protected]
StephenM. Rnmmage, WSBA#11168 Steven P. Caplow. WSBA #19843
7
E-mail:
8 9
10
[email protected]
Robert J. pfister (pro hac vice) Gabriel D. Miller (pro hac vice)
1999 Avenue ofthe Stars. 29th Floor Los Angeles. California 90067 Tel: ~310) 407-7500 310) 407-7502 Fax: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counselfor Defendant WfJShingto71 Mutual. Inc.· and for the limitedpurpose offiling this Joi71t Preliminary Report. Kerry K. KilJinger, Stephen Rotella. James B. Corcoran, David C.
Resources Committee, the WaMu Pltm .Administration Committee, the "aMu Plan 11Ivestment Committee. the Plan Administration Committee for the WaMu Savings Plan, and the Plan Investment Committeefor the WaMu Savings Plan
Schneider, John F. Woods. DarylD. David.
11
12
13 14 15
Deanna w: Oppenheimer, the WaMu Human
PERKINS COlE LLP
16 17 18 19 By:
IslRonald L. Berenstain
Ronald L. Berenstain, WSBA #1573 David F. Taylor, WSBA #25689 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101..3099 Tel: (206) 359-8477 (206) 359"9477 Fax: E"mail: [email protected] [email protected]
20
21 22
COfll'lSelfor Defendtmts.Anne Y. Farrel~
Stephen E. Fron'k. Thomas C. Leppert. Charles M. Lillu, Phillip D. Matthews. Regiluz 1Montoya, Michael K. Murphy. Mary E. Pugh, William G. Reed, Jr., Orin C. Smith, Thomas Casey. James H. Stever, and WiHis J. Wood. Jr.
23
24
25
26 27
28
10INT PRELlMINARYRBPORT (No. 2:08-lWi-01919 MJP) - 13
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 16 of 17
1 THACHER PROFFITT & WOOD LLP
2 By:
BISHOP WHITE & MARSHALL By:
lsi Richard F, Hans
Richard F. Hans (pro hac vice) Patrick J. Smith (pro hac vice)
3
4
5 6 7
Darius P. Chafizadeh (pro hac vice) . Two World Financial Center New York, New Yotk 10281 Tel: (212) Q12-7400 Fax: (212) 912-7751
Email:
[email protected].
[email protected] [email protected]
lsi William BishQI! Ann T. Marshall William. Bishop, Jr, 720 Olive Way, SUite 1301 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: (206) 622-5306 Fax: (206) 622-0354 Email: amarshaII@bwmlegaLcom [email protected]
8
Counselfor Fint American Corporation
9
and eAppraiseIT. LLC
Counselfor First American Corporation and e.AppraiseIT, LLC
10 11 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12 13 By: lsi Chad Johnson . Chad Johnson (pro hac vice) Hannah Ross (pro hac vice) 14 1285 Ave. ofth.e Americas, 38th Floor 15 New Ydrk, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: 16 (212) 554-1444 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 17 BYRNES & KELLER LLP
By:
1st Bmdley Keller Bmdley S. Keller, WSBA# 10665
JofreyM. McWilliam, WSBA#28441 1000 Second A venue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98104 TeL: (206) 622-2000 Fax: (206) 622-2522 Email: bkeller@bymeskeller,com jmcwilliam@byrneskeller,com
18 Counselfor Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Liaison Coumelfor the Class Board and Lead Counsellor the Class 19
20 KRISLOV &.ASSOCIATES, LTD. 21 By. 22
23"
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC By.
24
2S
26
lsi Clinton A Krislov Clinton A Krislov (pro hac vice) Jeffrey M. Salas (pro hac vice) 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 Chicago, illinois 60606 Tel: ~312) 606-0500 Fax: 312) 606-0207 Email: cl:int@krislovlaw,com je:ff@krislovlaw,com
lsI RogerM. Townsend Roger M. Townsend 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 .
SeattW,Wasbrnn~98104-4088
TeL: Fax: Email:
(206) 652-8660 (206) 652-4088 [email protected]
Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative 27 DemandFutile Action
28
JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT (No, 2:08-md-01919 MJP) - 14
Interim Liaison Coumel in Derivative . DemandFutile Action
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-3
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 17 of 17
1 2
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
By:
3 4 5
lsi David H. Leventhal David H. Leventhal (pro hac vice) 369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor .New York, New York 10017-6531 Tel: ~212) 983-9330
Fax:
212) 983-9331
Email:
dleventb.al@:fa:ru4ilaw.com
6
-andVabn Aleunder (pro hac vice)
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor Los Angeles. California 90067 Tel: ~310) 461-1426 310) 461-1427 Fax: Email; [email protected]
7
8
9
10
Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Derivative 11 Demand Futile Action
12 LAW OFFICES
BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
13 14 By:
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING,LLP
IS
16 17
lsi Deborah R. Gross Deborah R. Gross Robert P. Frutkin 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 561-3600 Tel: Fax: (215) 561-3000 Email: [email protected]
By:
lsi Dan Drachler Dan Drachler (WSBA #1.7728) 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, Washington 98101-1170 Tel: (206) 223-2053 Fax: (206) 343-9636 Email: [email protected]
18
Interim Lead Counsel in the
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIROLLP By:
19 Demand Made Derivative Action 20 21
Interim Lead COUTISel in the Demand Made Derivative Action
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. By:
22
23
24 25 26 27
lsi Andrew M. Volk Steve W. Berman, WSBA#12536 Andrew M. Volk, WSBA #27639 Tyler Weaver, WSBA #29413 Genessa Stout, WSBA #38410 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 623-7292 Tel: (206) 623-0594 Fax: Email; [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
lsi Derek W. Loeser Lynn L. Sarko, WSBA #16569 . Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274 Erin M. Riley, WSBA # 30401 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Washington 98101-3052 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: ·[email protected] [email protected]
28 Interim Co-Lead ERISA. Counsel JOINT PRELIMINARYREPORT
Interim Co-Lead ERISA Counsel
(No. 2:08-md-01919 MJP) -15
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT C
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 2 of 7
Case 5."08-cv-00888-HR
Document &-~
FIIet1 02(1512008 . Page 1 of 8
BD'OD'11IKJIJD!CIALPA'NEL
OK lt41lL'1'IDJS1'JUCTUTIQATI'CJ!l
) ) ) ) )
MDLDacJmtl'lo..
_
I
MOTIONOJ'WASBINGl'ONMIJT1Xe\L JOB.TlU.NSBIlOFAC'l'JONSTO TO WEB1DNDlSTlIIClOFWASBINGl'ONP11RS'OANTT02IV.&C.ll487
!QllcqgRD1NATED ORCONSOL1DAtED P!!TIlL\L!B9S'!PlNG§
I I.
DafimdllDt W.bJnaton Mntaa1, -
("wa'M11'? fCS,ptdMlymoYesthis Paao1,
putSlDlDtto 2S U.s.c.ll407 amlRule 72. ofthe Ia1a1 ofPJ1K:.aSDm oftbo ludiciatPanel 011
I
j
Malfidktrltt ~ far III Orda' tumsfeu.iu.JSIMm almiJaraetkms. Jista1 mtbattac1teet
Stf1acDrteof/ted""" 10 tho B'PD4rab1e Mamba 1. PecbmaD, Uaitat States D1Btdot 1mJge fbrtID
wesremDistrict otW-.1dnafan, tbr COd.I,fiuahl'I or ennsoTfda1ed ptr1B1 praaedop.
Ju soppIItof'tbo tImis&Ir ad cueudioaticm or ccmso1ftfatlO11 of1bllseJlG&ms. BD4
as mote fblyllticulatM initio ~8IIppadingBJiet WaMusiatBs:
L
To clam. sovc se,parafo acdorIl (tI1e fWaMu Ossa'? lumt1=m lavu&&t
agaiDst WaMuaud ~fDdWfduaI der&mJantspeadiDsm th umted Sfates Dfstdct Cnt1B far
1heW .DilldatofWasldDatnolDdtheSoDfbamDfatdGtofNawYodr. .
2..
WaMuil a defimGant·
.m oftlmWiMuCasea.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 3 of 7
Case 6:08-cV-00868-HRL
Document ~2
FIled 02/1512008
Page 2 of 8
3.
Bahof_iDdi'fW:aBl c1nfindmdB mtho WaMA Casella anofilcuror
c1inaIar ofWUfa, orboat.
4. ptaImlffjfDtbme attlKrW.... ea-pIIipOtt· ·-mmdiomJit1e
-.otfrMtdau m WaMu'spuh6c1ytalec1lJe01lridSa
TlIe taeepdatlve c1sBs. . . mmptainfs edlllSlllillt claims tllldert1le
fcdcra1-fhc:i11Dt Jaws act a1Ie&e that clf6,m"181m.owiaatYarrea1c1-'JpVblisW aaodesaf
mptefa1Jyfiilsead_1eedmsCldIlJ.Jllarlrne4todfscJosemateriaJin&ddJatkmtelamdto
(l) aaa11epd OCIIJS)IimoylNtween WaMa aa41D appraisal WIIdm'. aApp"8isen".re1tD4 fit
appadaal wluatiGDs.1aaDa mfgioated byWaMa; (2) WaYlis BJpJiUte to 1amHeIatI41Dsses.
lD4.teSIl'ViDIaa4~""lasses. mPJQal1 D1 in1lJbtoffilal:a1lege4
Ci01ii~
-(3) wdoDs aspe&:fS atWat\/frt. pa tb",,"ft1» and 8CCOUiItiuBfnJisbt ofthe
a1Ieaed CUlISpflBay and ofooanafrJgmndftfons ira tho1rame 'JczdinB aa4 «ec1It mer1m!a
t.
.A1f.bauJhtboaJIegql WaMu~ eoDDj1haq1s thosalljectofa
Jawsuitffbthytha New YodcAttomDyGene.t:l1, mdther WaMuJUJratryofthoiDdivldua1 .
detimc1anlB fa JUIlD84 fD tbe NewYorkAtfDmeyGcnemrs eomplaUrt
.
7.
WaMuifaoI£
PJafntSflB in tWO oftbe WaMu CBsc8 seek to. .
c1edvidiwi,. heba1fof
8.
1'&e two c1eaiwtlvo IIAdcm coii.pwtmc eaalissser:tsbde Jaw c1alms:lOt
1aadlotticJpcjmy4uf.y. abuse ofcomml. psi mf8nl8nageuumt, waste ofcmpmdI88B8fS aad
aqja8t .f'OIftDt 'l11ese ctefms are1saaec1lrqetYQIl tbo1hao1ytlmtcWtmdlllJf8 wfsIep:awted
WaMu·. . . .iD tisk'fn t1Ie lIome bmmaJbt.at alsomisrqAi ,. ,,,'wi ori1.t1e4 to disclose
&aftiidwfLm JIWG1Id ill tUNowYcu:kA.tIm2:teJGeQmalts C'O"'q)k:int
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 4 of 7
Case 5:OB-w-OQB68..HRl.
Document 6-2
FlIed 0211512008
Page 3 of 8
13.
14.
Idle, WasftinStcmisltJc:U:rlin the WestemDistdc:tofWaabingtnn.
WaMupalIYPlqqes aDd tdeases its SfGDitits aadRxctnmp
Oimm lsaian1iJiuas1iam ifa seaur.. Wastmrsrnn ~
15. WsVD F"C""DY:JIL\\I8iiilS aacl121_
itspxess mJcaes fiomitl ~
Wabfnston~
-16.
Daftmcfanfs XmyIt. ~flJinpL; Ste,pha11. RoteJJa, "Ibrpnq w. Casey,
DaYi4 Co So1meide; Jams B. ~1c1m F. Waads. and Dat,lD. Da'Vic1am UiiCIOItiwsot
W_ \1t'D!k .WIMlt8~lu Seattle IDClIivemor:aesrtbeSe8t1le.W89bblg1DD
metropoJIflm-. 11. JUs WaM1l'sWfatattlds ead1atapof1JtisdnD tbat"th1Da1ly aIloftbe
mamat dmamtmdBaa4mastafthe wibt*le'. are ~ inOl'DB'1heWeslBmDistDatof
WesbfnatDa.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
a
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 5 of 7
,
CaSe S:08-cv-Q0868-HRL
Document 6-2
FIled 02I15l2OO8
Page 4 of a
18.
·
a1Joptlcms of811 seve WaMn 0Ises Ddso sultshmtlaJl)'simDar olaima
. . . .CMdapgiDsarou.P ofddanlwll... amlan. .aclfaDs wiIIiJmdvo slmUarcompTu _~ __ ofIaw_fad.
19.
Owmcn __ tbatwm IIDII1 to be c1cD' nti,"", in tlIopell4ins'"
alkpflnnsiR "oftblae¥ell
frIt:1trIft\ Imt. .JlGtBmftad., w1JetJJa'''JarP1~
IIpp'IIisa1 Brma -1I:DD, cd
Wa1II1 o.s &hm1t Wdlu'slomIass ftlIIII:YeS. its 6cI0SDL'IIS. aud its cfaBnp withcsamlde
~ these
it_
mara ammaterial. amlif'matm JaI. whetbar
ddnfan1s IcaowinglyorMC1dess1ymfrrep: es lfal orfidIed tit dfs:Iosettha faIU.
20. " .amsoNaticm amI tmusfia ofthD WaVD C8seswou1dsem the
emm:nfenco o:f'tfKt~ tbe wifuessg. dIojvdialaryaml cowzsel ~ ~wfth2SU.s.C.
t 1407.
11.
Abseatprd:la1 coan'finatIrm or comoHdatfaDs tI1apouihiJit,Yof
iDa-sfea' p1Ulda1 tDIiJ:lp aisfB, cs,peciaJJr em J!!OffDIIS to dismiss ami maticms fin' mmunaty
jVdJprumt, as we1188 witlneprd tea al8ss ~ _ fbDpragerseope ami. .of cBscoMlt)'.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 6 of 7
·
CaSe 5:0kv-C10868-HRI:
Document 6-2
FIled C21151200B
Page 5 of 6
25.
«I.. No 01-U654M.
_bee
Au addflinna1 dai'9atf.w acbr Catholc1tf«1lcpl M1Irlfm 'P. Kil1.fIJger, flt
ti1edm fheSDpcdor ColIUoftbo Sta!a of'WJBhinstm.ICinB
CouDtj,!QIlcfus sVbstBntfaDJ~ aDegatimm1D 1hDWaMu Cases. As %ClS1J1t. Ohiwvm, could
be~ 1Jetwecm. tbefildaral au4sb1te comtactloas in W~ sbou1d tlteD.t ar1se.
2f.
"1'lI8 WiidlIm l1fserfatofWlJShinsInr« __ leu
con,
led ~
pnflcn1adywithzeprcltDmvlfldi,,* IitiPf=. .As ot~so.
'betWlO41UfDg ad tda1 in tbDWestcmDiltdctofWaSbiDattm
was.
2OG6. tkmdlll11fr.u
mDIItba. . .tblmin tJJe
SoufhemDfstrjatofNew Y4tk. .In aetcHtJcm. 8& ot'Novembar 6r:1007. tbe &ntlmm DIsf:iat of
New YorkllastbirtJ..agbtnm1Hdistrjct HtfaatIOD aet!mlspendin,gonifB ~ CiCIiJ11IIIted to
GDlyOD&unv1tldfstrict'1itiptionintheWesbmlDf&1rIdofWaslrington.
peem,." U.aftBI Sfat.es J:)f.sbktJmJsefoftbo WCliklr41)f8ldctofW~ who fscurmnt1y
presidfnscmrtb thstaetkm tual fa the Wcst=DJstdctofW.shivsfm. 1lIdgelWUti8DluIs . .
eqwlmce pcaidiDa overccmp1_ nmJtIdistriat JifiptioA lIIIti trills is dlomasc IDsfcsl choice.
28.
,.Doft1J& sadmIs fa tba W. . .DJstrJatofWlIlI17iqtott wwI4
amsavewbmbIeju&ialresoun:es aa4 waal4 pnmmt potaItia11y amflWtIngjuc1ida1 cJec1sIrn
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
.. _ .·, _ 2...
$._
Document 110-4
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 7 of 7
.~
Case 5:Q8..ev.Q0888-HR
Documertt 6-2
FIled 0211512008
Page 6 of 6
..
.
.
S1:I;ppatofWa'M'u-aMoticmfbrTmasfarofAc6msl'ozsaaat~2SUS.c.f 1407. WaMu
msrwf'&dlyteCJ.aestB 1!mt tile Paul ~8Il 0111ar ha'ilda,jllsaU-a acdoJJ8Baklcl fQtho . .
au. Iud Sa'ba1uIeof~ 88wo11aaan~me4ro1atecl ~ODS.1Otbol!oDDxab1e
Mamba1. PaobtTnm., timterl S1atesnJstrict;rudJe fDrtbo WestcmD1stdctofWfUibin&tou. fin' coor4inatcd or mrrso1ideted pretda1 piDcar:dbJgL
navtd.T. BlMPSONmACHBR.&BA1t'1'LBITW
425 Y';1J&b u lAftIDJe {212) ~2700
: .
NewYork.,NewYodc 10011..3954-
.
{212l 4SS-2S02 (Ax)
CouDseIfor Wa&fDgfml Matus',1u. . .
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-5
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 1 of 21
EXHIBITD
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-5
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 2 of 21
It
case 6:08-ev-00868-HRL Document &-3
FUecr02l1512008
Page'1 of 20
B.U'O.RE TBEJUDICIAL PANEL · ONlYDLDDl'STJlIC1'LlTIGlTlON
)
)
) )
MDLDodIetNo.
_
1
BRJD'JNSlJPPORT OFWASBINGTONM'VTUAL'SMOTION ll'QR'1'1W!SJ'g - AcrrONS PIlR@JA'NTT028U.s.C. 81@
~wsmmtto28 U.s.c. i
1401 and1ta1e7.2 oftb.e1tDles ofPtaceduteoftbo
. l'adioia1 Pau8l 011 Multidfstdat Liti~ 0afLmclant WlISbiDgtDn M~ Ina. ("W'aMlt')
xcspcutfu1ly abadas tldsBdofiasuppmtoflts lfoticm to tamsfarthDse acrfcms liBted in the
So1Ia1ule ofAc:dcms (tbo"WaMu eaea-) to b HoMrabJeMarslm 1. PeclIlOm. tmm:c1 States
DiIlf:dct1udp ibrtho WestCm.DistdctafWasbfnBmnJ farDOUimumG or CDJJS01f&ded p.retda1
plO""'Iffmp. Most ofthe ~ ~aUofbrc1Bvaut docllwen1:I! aDd _Ii?
srs. and
fiveoftbe SCMILacIiomlsa locatedha the Westam DistdetofW~ makingitthofmum
1hItwiIl bestpromototbDjust andefBdmd centraDzecJ prctr:ia1 p.roceMiDp oftbe WaMu Cases.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW
Document 110-5
Filed 07/11/2008
Page 3 of 21
·
CaseS:O&-ev-OO868-HRL
Oocument&-3
FJfecf02l1512OO8
Page2of20
!'J"lMIJABJ ST4'l'W&It
i2n0otta. WaMI:l.-88BCtc1llfms. .tbe ffdaratsecaddoalawB IIId
ane.o·fhat r1dh.nF ImowfDs1ycncot1esslypahlfshe&fa series ofm.ataialIyfillse ami
mfs1eaiinJ ada,u lIeul» or Ailed to &dusa material WO, llratlan %UlIIterl1D (1) an a1&lFl
ams,plraoy'hatwamWaMnmlaDaPPiniu1\'CDdor,eAppaisulT.m1ata1toeppmfaalwtmtinns
oalDlaoriginata1lJyWaMu; t2) WaWIl', caposare1DJam.ra1IdEld lossar. am! it:u.. ...viDg IIId
~...thoselosse.\ iDseaeal amJiJaHPt otfmtaJ1ep4 ~ ad(3)wdcRIs
aspcrsofWaM1tspedbm. . aadftCU!m!l,,,JnlfBbtofthe~COii8j>fraoyaudof -.'IS.caaclftJcms fa thoJaamo1ea4irJg1Df1 CIBdit IZlAil_ Two of1he WaMu ea- aRt
Iaivaffte aetfaas.each --tfDB__ 1awoJafms bb%eadl otfltiDdmy~6use GfamfrDl,
an- J"fflilliM'~ waste Cff
amt UDjJlst emidmml '.tbase oJaims lID basecl
wtfonmJar.e4 tDtboaDesed
Imply on tbatlJeoryfJratcfet'andallfa mIsi.~ Wdm'l Gii:jlOSQl1:uuisk mt1=aubpEimll
miwe.Ptesoarc4 arfidlal to diaa1oso idR
li
CQDIIilacy. All. .WaMa OrBcspJafrdyadaBoatoftberamelBt ofojlWltive. . . ad
~ n oramaoJidatfOl1fi1:pmtriat ~finp
woaJdMftt&occmYenkmd" oftbBjt8Ifiaf
sad witl:
5811dpmmote1bojuatamf eflicfent CJl'IiI'i111f GftZrcseacrtkms-
Cccnltdm ar ocms;'MfJtfnn oftb Wd4'D CaE will proraafIt tlieefiGiclJlt
admfzris!mtjcm otpretrial motiGDt, 4f8ccmIy
---lIDCft'hWt
aDd, fa thepmcess, fbrtbar
the cxmveatenc:eaftlsajadk:ialy, pdea, wltnessas ad CUIIDSe1. T.beaamtml"doa afacnapccnof1ilcfB ia:901viDs WaMifa maaaao"&'1lt afaad disdosaztes IV1BtDd aD putel «fa11am1GSBeSia
it811omo1olms Qf'"'U ami also fIwo1'v.faailut cJMf,. IawCiilIi Wdrfullbi otdldde 6,W,.fal
ba, ID4GJBfma ~sI"qmtma&a pmctIeIad pcISSiIaITomwalw4iacotay.
t _"..
miJffatMfJt:I:rl1JfJ.Jm&vorot~01'Q\'!I8OlfddOD.
Maayottba WaM1I CueI~
lopl ....... lIIIl
willfle'""""IIt~_Io....-....
....-
....
~
_.
Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW -
_.Document 110-5 -- -07/11/2008 --.-- --- Filed .
Page 4 of 21
··
It
. 10J
i! f °1 f ~ I !, III f II r! f· f If! 1I I !Ifiii i! f t f IiItil ~ tII
i? il ~
t
;:
IJ
~
r
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms