Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05518/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05518-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

ROBERT S. STERN (BAR NO. 68240)

NANCY R. THOMAS (BAR NO. 236185)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500

Los Angeles, California 90013-1024

Telephone: (213) 892-5200

Facsimile: (213) 892-5454

RStern@mofo.com

NThomas@mofo.com

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

(Additional Counsel Listed Below)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DAVID COONS, Individually and On Behalf of 

All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICHOLAS K. PONTIKES, WILLIAM N. 

PONTIKES, ROBERT A. BARDAGY, 

THOMAS H. PATRICK, C. KEITH HARTLEY, 

JOHN F. SLEVIN, CAROLYN L. MURPHY, 

RICHARD KASH, HARRY M. JANSEN 

KRAMER, JR., JOHN J. VOSICKY, and JP 

MORGAN CHASE & CO.,

Defendants.

No. C-04-5518 CRB

STIPULATION REGARDING 

TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION TO 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

ILLINOIS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, to Transfer 

on June 13, 2005 [PACER Docket Nos. 48, 51 & 54] (the “Pending Motions”);

WHEREAS, by these Pending Motions, Defendants moved to dismiss for improper 

venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, to

transfer the action to the Northern District of Illinois in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);
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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ alternative motion to transfer the 

action to the Northern District of Illinois in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);

WHEREAS, Section 1404(a) authorizes the Court to transfer an action “[f]or the 

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice;”

WHEREAS, the Pending Motions make an evidentiary showing that a substantial number

of the parties and witnesses and most of the documents are located in the Northern District of 

Illinois. (Declaration of Daniel J. Clarke, Jr. in Support of Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s 

Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or, in the Alternative, to Transfer (“Clarke Dec.”) ¶¶ 15-

21; Declaration of Phillip D. Martin in Support of Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Motion 

to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or, in the Alternative, to Transfer (“Martin Dec.”) ¶¶ 13-14;

Affidavit of Robert E.T. Lackey submitted in support of the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer

(“Lackey Aff.”) ¶¶ 7-10; First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 10-18.);

WHEREAS, the Pending Motions make an evidentiary showing that Plaintiff does not 

live in the Northern District of California and he brings this action on behalf of similarly situated 

parties, the majority of whom lived in the Northern District of Illinois at the time the operative 

events occurred (Martin Dec. ¶¶ 6-7.; Affidavit of Susan A. Long submitted in support of the 

Motion to Dismiss or Transfer filed by certain individual defendants ¶ 8);

WHEREAS, the Pending Motions make an evidentiary showing that related litigation is 

ongoing in the Northern District of Illinois. (Lackey Aff. ¶ 12.);

WHEREAS, while Plaintiff does not concede that venue in the Northern District of 

California is not proper, in order to avoid additional motion practice, Plaintiffs will not oppose 

the transfer of the action to the Northern District of Illinois in accordance with § 1404(a) and

Defendants will withdraw the portions of the Pending Motions based on Rule 12(b)(3) without 

prejudice; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Defendants have the right to file motions to 

dismiss this action after the case is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois based on a 

briefing schedule to be agreed to by the parties and/or determined by the Judge in the Northern

District of Illinois.
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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

3

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among counsel for the parties that, subject to 

Court approval, this action should be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice in accordance with 

§ 1404(a).

It is further stipulated that, if the Court grants the alternative Motions to Transfer and 

orders this action transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, the Defendants will withdraw

the portion of the Pending Motions based on Rule 12(b)(3) without prejudice.

It is further stipulated that the Defendants have the right to file motions to dismiss this 

action after the case is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois based on a briefing schedule 

to be agreed to by the parties and/or determined by the Judge in the Northern District Illinois.

This stipulation to transfer the action to the Northern District of Illinois is supported by 

good cause in that it avoids additional motion practice and conserves judicial resources by

avoiding consideration of the portion of the Pending Motions based on Rule 12(b)(3).

Dated: July 22, 2005 NANCY R. THOMAS

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Nancy R. Thomas

Nancy R. Thomas

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMorgan Chase & Co.
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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

4

Dated: July 22, 2005

SUE J. STOTT

JONES DAY

By: /s/ Sue J. Stott

Sue J. Stott

Attorneys for Defendants William N. 

Pontikes, Robert A. Bardagy, Thomas H. 

Patrick, C. Keith Hartley, John F. Slevin, 

Carolyn L. Murphy, Richard Kash, Harry 

M. Jansen Kramer, Jr. and John J. Vosicky

Dated: July 22, 2005

DAVID T. BIDERMAN

PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ David T. Biderman

David T. Biderman

Attorneys for Defendant

Nicholas K. Pontikes

Dated: July 22, 2005

ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS

SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP

By: /s/ Arthur J. Shartsis

Arthur J. Shartsis

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Coons, 

Individually and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated
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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

5

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

I, Nancy R. Thomas, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION REGARDING TRANFER OF THIS ACTION TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 

OF ILLINOIS; [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest 

that Sue J. Stott, David T. Biderman and Arthur J. Shartsis have concurred in this filing.

Dated: July 22, 2005

/s/ Nancy R. Thomas

Additional Counsel:

SUE J. STOTT (BAR NO. 91144)

JONES DAY

555 California Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 626-3939

Facsimile: (415) 875-5700

Attorneys for Defendants Robert A. Bardagy, 

William N. Pontikes, Thomas H. Patrick, C. Keith 

Hartley, John F. Slevin, Carolyn L. Murphy, 

Richard Kash, Harry M. Jansen Kramer, Jr. and 

John J. Vosicky

DAVID T. BIDERMAN (BAR NO. 101577)

PERKINS COI LLP

180 Townsend St., 3rd Floor

San Francisco, California 94107-1909

Telephone: (415) 344-7110

Facsimile: (415) 344-7238

Attorneys for Defendant Nicholas K. Pontikes

ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS (BAR NO. 51549)

JAHAN P. RAISSI (BAR NO. 168599)

JASON P. LEE (BAR NO. 196520)

SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP

One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 421-6500

Facsimile: (415) 421-2922

Attorneys for Plaintiff

David Coons, Individually and On Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated
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 REGARDING TRANSFER

NO. C-04-5518 CRB

la-807220

6

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, the Court 

hereby transfers this case to the Northern District of Illinois in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a).

The portions of the Motions to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, to Transfer filed on June 

13, 2005 [PACER Docket Nos. 48, 51 & 54] based on Rule 12(b)(3) are hereby withdrawn

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

U.S. District Court Judge

July 25, 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge Charles R. Breyer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge Charles R. Breyer