Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07370/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ

sf-2232470 

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (BAR NO. 34097) 

mgoldman@mofo.com 

JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. 121617) 

jeth@mofo.com 

JUDSON E. LOBDELL (BAR NO. 146041) 

jlobdell@mofo.com 

MARK FOSTER (BAR NO. 223682) 

mfoster@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company; Defendants Daniel 

Boggan, Jr., Richard T. Conti, Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, Gerald E. 

Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean O. Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. 

Rose, Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. Ticknor; and Specially 

Appearing Defendants George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. Johnson, 

Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela 

Thomas-Graham, and C.A. Wolfe 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DORIS STAEHR, Derivatively On Behalf of 

THE CLOROX COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRANK A. TATASEO, LAWRENCE S. 

PEIROS, GEORGE C. ROETH, STEVEN S. 

SILBERBLATT, KEITH R. TANDOWSKY, 

GREGORY S. FRANK, WAYNE L. DELKER, 

DANIEL J. HEINRICH, LAURA STEIN, 

WARWICK EVERY-BURNS, LARY R. SCOTT, 

GARY C. MICHAEL, DANIEL BOGGAN, JR., 

TULLY M. FRIEDMAN, ROBERT W. 

MATSCHULLAT, JAN L. MURLEY, 

MICHAEL E. SHANNON, CAROLYN M. 

TICKNOR, PAMELA THOMAS GRAHAM, 

GEORGE J. HARAD, C. CRAIG SULLIVAN, 

GERALD E. JOHNSTON, WILLIAM F. 

AUSFAHL, JOHN W. COLLINS, ANTHONY 

W. BIEBL, JANET M. BRADY, KAREN M. 

ROSE, RICHARD T. CONTI, 

[Caption continued on following page], 

DERIVATIVE ACTION

Case No. C-06-7370-MJJ 

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED SHAREHOLDER 

DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT 

Judge: Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

Dept: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 

sf-2232470 

GLENN R. SAVAGE, DAVID G. MATZ, 

SCOTT A. WEISS, SCOTT D. HOUSE, 

DANIEL G. SIMPSON, PETER D. BEWLEY, 

EDWARD A. CUTTER, PAMELA FLETCHER, 

C. A. WOLFE, EDWARD L. SCARFF, DEAN O. 

MORTON, CHRISTOPH HENKEL, URSULA 

FAIRCHILD, FORREST N. SHUMWAY, 

JAMES A. VOHS, JUERGEN MANCHOT, 

JOCHEN KRAUTTER, KLAUS MORWIND, 

ELAINE L. CHAO, WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, 

and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants, 

-andTHE CLOROX COMPANY, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 1

sf-2232470 

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-12, and paragraph 7 of the Court’s Standing 

Order, Plaintiff Doris Staehr and the defendants who have been served to date, which include: 

Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company, Defendants Daniel Boggan, Jr., Richard T. Conti, 

Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, Gerald E. Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean O. 

Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. Rose, Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. 

Ticknor, and Specially Appearing Defendants George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. 

Johnson, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela 

Thomas-Graham, and C.A. Wolfe, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. On August 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed her shareholder derivative complaint on August 

4, 2006 (the “Original Complaint”) in the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda 

County asserting nine causes of action and naming twenty-one individual defendants and 

Nominal Defendant The Clorox Company (“Clorox”). The Original Complaint pleaded causes of 

action for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties for approving improperly dated stock 

option grants, breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of funds, abuse 

of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, accounting, rescission, and 

constructive trust. (Lobdell Declaration. ¶ 2.)1

2. On September 1, 2006, Clorox filed and served a demurrer to the Original 

Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring her derivative suit on behalf of Clorox 

because she had not made a pre-suit demand on the Clorox’s board of directors and she had not 

pleaded with particularity that demand was excused. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

3. During the months of August and September 2006, the already-served defendants 

agreed to accept service of process without waiving any defenses (including their right to assert 

that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California). (Id. ¶ 4.) 

 

1

 Citations to the “Lobdell Declaration” are to the Declaration of Judson E. Lobdell that is being 

filed concurrently with and in support of this Stipulation pursuant to the requirements of the 

Court’s Standing Order. 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 3 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 2

sf-2232470 

4. On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of her intent to file an amended 

complaint, and defendants subsequently granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file her amended 

complaint. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

5. On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed her Amended Shareholder Derivative 

Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). (Id. ¶ 6.) 

6. The Amended Complaint added twenty-seven new individual defendants who 

were not named in the Original Complaint. The Amended Complaint reasserted the causes of 

action pleaded in the Original Complaint and added three new causes of action: violation of 

California Corporations Code Section 25402, violation of California Corporations Code Section 

25403, and violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

“Exchange Act”). (Id. ¶ 7.) 

7. On December 1, 2006, after giving advance notice to Plaintiff, all defendants who 

have been served to date removed the case to this Court on the ground that federal courts have 

exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Section 16(b) claim pursuant to Section 27 of 

the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims. (Id. ¶ 

8.) 

8. The twenty-seven newly added individual defendants include current and former 

directors, officers, and other executives of Clorox, many of whom live in other states or foreign 

countries. They have not yet been served with the Amended Complaint. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

9. Counsel are diligently pursuing efforts to coordinate service of process and 

representation of the newly added individual defendants. Counsel for the already-served 

defendants are in the process of contacting defendants who have not yet been served to discuss 

issues including accepting service of process on their behalf. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

10. A response to the Amended Complaint from the defendants who have been served 

in this action to date would be due on December 8, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 81(c). (Id. ¶ 11.) 

11. The parties have met and conferred and agree that it will promote efficiency and 

orderly administration of justice if the time allowed to each defendant already served to respond 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 3

sf-2232470 

to the Amended Complaint is extended in light of the service of process and representation issues 

discussed above. (Id. ¶ 12.) 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, that no 

defendant shall be required to respond to the Amended Complaint before January 19, 2007. 

Dated: December 6, 2006 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Fax: (415) 268-7522 

By: /s/ Judson E. Lobdell [e-filing signature] 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant The Clorox 

Company; Defendants Daniel Boggan, Jr., Richard 

T. Conti, Tully M. Friedman, Daniel J. Heinrich, 

Gerald E. Johnston, Robert W. Matschullat, Dean 

O. Morton, Lawrence S. Peiros, Karen M. Rose, 

Lary R. Scott, G. Craig Sullivan, and Carolyn M. 

Ticknor; and Specially Appearing Defendants 

George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. 

Johnson, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. 

Murley, Michael E. Shannon, Pamela ThomasGraham, and C.A. Wolfe 

DATED: December 6, 2006 ROBBINS UMEDA & FINK, LLP 

610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 525-3990 

 Fax: (619) 525-3991 

By: /s/ Marc M. Umeda [e-filing signature] 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 5 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 4

sf-2232470 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ Day of _____________, 2006. 

 

Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 6 of 7

7th December

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 6 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 5

sf-2232470 

ECF ATTESTATION 

I, Mark Foster, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file this: 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Judson E. Lobdell and 

Marc M. Umeda have concurred in this filing. 

DATED: December 6, 2006 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Mark Foster [e-filing signature] 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 7 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 7 of 7