Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04108-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ETC.

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 10/1/08**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL BLOMQUIST, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED 1

NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

[re: doc. nos. 151 & 156]

On July 23, 2008, the Court granted the motion of certain defendants to dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Dismissal Order”). The Dismissal Order granted

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) naming

only the Lender Defendants; leave to amend was denied as to the Non-Lender Defendants. 

Accordingly, on July 25, 2008 the Court entered a final judgment (the “Non-Lender Judgment”)

in favor of Non-Lender Defendants Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Henry Paulson, The McGrawCase 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 164 Filed 10/01/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Case No. C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ETC.

(JFLC1)

Hill Companies, Inc., Harold McGraw III, Experian Holdings, Inc. (sued as Experian Corp.),

Fitch Group, Inc. (sued as Fimalac, Inc.), and Moody’s Corp. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as

to the Non-Lender Judgment on August 25, 2008. 

In the Dismissal Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff not only to omit any claims against

the Non-Lender Defendants but also to omit any claims against the Lender Defendants for

securities fraud. In contravention of these instructions, the SAC contains claims against the NonLender Defendants and alleges purported claims for securities fraud against the Lender

Defendants. Accordingly, the Court issued an order on September 10, 2008, instructing the

Lender Defendants to respond only to the claims expressly permitted by the Dismissal Order. 

Subsequently, several of the Non-Lender Defendants filed a document with the Court,

apparently seeking to clarify that they need not respond to the SAC because of the prior NonLender Judgment in their favor. Plaintiff filed a response to this notice, arguing that the SAC

does apply to the Non-Lender Defendants because it contains new allegations involving antitrust,

negligence, and RICO claims based upon previously unpled facts. See, e.g., Pl.’s Mem. Opp.

Mot. Dismiss/Strike at 4, Sept. 26, 2008 (The “facts and issues to support these claims are not the

same as the claims in the first complaint.”). Plaintiff also proceeded to file an ex parte motion

requesting default judgment against one of the Non-Lender Defendants, Henry Paulson, on the

ground that Mr. Paulson was served and failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to

Plaintiff’s original complaint. 

Plaintiff’s actions and arguments are incorrect and contrary to the express terms of the

Dismissal Order. The Dismissal Order and Non-Lender Judgment operate as a final judgment

against the Non-Lender Defendants. Whether Plaintiff should have been permitted to amend his

claims against the Non-Lender Defendants is an issue to be resolved on appeal. Accordingly, and

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 164 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Case No. C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ETC.

(JFLC1)

consistent with the Court’s prior instructions, any allegations against the Non-Lender Defendants

are hereby stricken from the SAC. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for default judgment is denied

because judgment already has been entered in favor of Mr. Paulson, as set forth in the Dismissal

Order and Non-Lender Judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s allegations against the NonLender Defendants are stricken from the SAC, and Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for default

judgment against Henry Paulson is DENIED. 

DATED: October 1, 2008

___________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 164 Filed 10/01/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ETC.

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Charles G. Miller cmiller@bztm.com, jcoster@ssbb.com, jrubins@ssbb.com,

pbrown@bztm.com

Christopher A. Stecher christopher.stecher@kyl.com, menchie.garcia@kyl.com

Christopher Alan Carr ccarr@afrct.com, ccarr@afrct.com

Elizabeth Allen Frohlich efrohlich@morganlewis.com, jowyang@morganlewis.com

Erik Wayne Kemp ek@severson.com, ek@severson.com, ano@severson.com

John B. Sullivan jbs@severson.com

Jonathan Alan Patchen jpatchen@tcolaw.com, abradley@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com,

hcaughron@tcolaw.com, sbundy@tcolaw.com

Lloyd Winawer lwinawer@goodwinprocter.com, cburgos@goodwinprocter.com,

monyeagbako@goodwinprocter.com, sasmith@goodwinprocter.com

Martin L. Fineman martinfineman@dwt.com, edithshertz@dwt.com

Melinda Mae Morton mmorton@be-law.com, gsimmons@be-law.com, troy@cahill.com

Michael Scott Blomquist michaelsblomquist@gmail.com

Michael Scott-Alan Blomquist michaelsblomquist@gmail.com

Michael William Stebbins mstebbins@be-law.com, vross@be-law.com

Peter R. Boutin peter.boutin@kyl.com

Regina Jill McClendon , Esq rjm@severson.com, ksb@severson.com

Ryan Jude Thompson rthompson@goodwinprocter.com, rnelson@goodwinprocter.com,

srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com, thefferon@goodwinprocter.com

Sabrina M. Rose-Smith srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com

Sam N. Dawood samdawood@dwt.com, allanpatterson@dwt.com, pammaiwandi@dwt.com

Stephen E. Taylor staylor@tcolaw.com, abradley@tcolaw.com, achung@tcolaw.com,

cdunbar@tcolaw.com, hcaughron@tcolaw.com, jgrant@tcolaw.com, jhinesshah@tcolaw.com,

jpatchen@tcolaw.com, sbundy@tcolaw.com

Stephen Michael Rummage steverummage@dwt.com, jeannecadley@dwt.com

Theodore Walter Maya tmaya@kayescholer.com

Thomas M. Hefferon thefferon@goodwinprocter.com

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 164 Filed 10/01/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 07-04108 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISMISSED NON-LENDER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ETC.

(JFLC1)

James J. Coster

Satterlee Stephen Burke & Burke LLP

230 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10169

Joshua M. Rubins

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke

230 Park Ave

New York, NY 10169-0079

Case 5:07-cv-04108-JF Document 164 Filed 10/01/08 Page 5 of 5