Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01110/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Deutsche Bank Trust Company

Americas, in its capacity as successor

indenture trustee for certain series of

Senior Notes, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Peter W. King and Jane Doe King,

husband and wife, on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly

situated persons, et. al.,

Defendants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-1110-PHX-PGR

ORDER STAYING DEFENDANTS’

TIME TO RESPOND TO THE

COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION

OR COMMENCE MOTIONS

PRACTICE UNTIL FURTHER

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF DELAWARE OR

FURTHER ORDER OF THIS

COURT

The Court having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion To Modify Stay Order (Doc. 43),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint in this action or

commence motions practice is stayed until further order of the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Delaware in In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC) or further order

of this Court (the “Stay”). In addition, any applicable deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23 or 26 (or their local counterparts) will also be held in abeyance during the

pendency of the Stay.

2. Notwithstanding the Stay, Plaintiffs are permitted to:

Case 2:11-cv-01110-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

a. amend the Complaint or move for leave to amend the Complaint;

b. voluntarily dismiss this action or one or more defendants pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41;

c. move to add or drop a party or to sever any claim against a party pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21;

d. move to consolidate and/or coordinate this action with any other action,

without limitation, by making a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and

the applicable Rules of Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation, or any applicable state rules;

e. file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) seeking

pre-conference discovery that may be necessary solely for the purpose of

preventing applicable statutes of limitation or other time-related defenses

from barring any state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims

against any former Tribune shareholder to recover stock

redemption/purchase payments made to such shareholders in connection

with the 2007 Tribune LBO; and

f. file a motion seeking modification of this Order.

3. Notwithstanding the Stay, all Defendants or their counsel are required to enter

an appearance in this case within 30 days after the latter of entry of this Order or service of

the Complaint upon Defendant, without prejudice to any defenses or positions that Defendant

may have; and

4. Notwithstanding the Stay, Defendants are permitted to file responses to any

motions Plaintiffs make pursuant to section 2 of this Order.

5. Notwithstanding the Stay, any Defendant who was not provided with notice

of Plaintiffs’ motion prior to entry of this Order, because such defendant had not yet been

served with the Complaint or appeared in the action, may move this Court at any time to

Case 2:11-cv-01110-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/03/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

vacate or modify this Order upon notice to Plaintiffs and all other Defendants in this action.

6. At such time as the Stay is lifted or terminates, Plaintiffs shall within ten (10)

days inform the Court of the need to set the schedule for answering or otherwise responding

to the Complaint, unless the action has been transferred to another court for coordinated

pretrial proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulations for Extension of Time

to Answer Complaint (Docs. 19, 20) are denied as moot.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01110-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/03/11 Page 3 of 3