Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07370/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07370-3/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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 

sf-2312855 

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 William F. Ausfahl, Peter Bewley, Anthony W. Biebl, Janet 

M. Brady, John W. Collins, Edward A. Cutter, Wayne Delker, Warwick EveryBurns, Pam Fletcher, Gregory Frank, George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William 

R. Johnson, David Matz, Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, George 

C. Roeth, Glenn Savage, Edward L. Scarff, Michael E. Shannon, Forest N. 

Shumway, Daniel G. Simpson, Laura Stein, Frank Tataseo, Pamela ThomasGraham, James A. Vohs, Scott Weiss, 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 G. 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, G. 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: (1) GRANTING 

CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

(2) STAYING LITIGATION 

Judge: Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

Dept: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 6
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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 

sf-2312855 

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 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 6
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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 1

sf-2312855 

STIPULATION 

Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-3(b), 7-12, 16-

2(e), and paragraph 7 of the Court’s Standing Order, Plaintiff Doris Staehr, Nominal Defendant 

The Clorox Company (“Clorox”); 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 William F. Ausfahl, Peter Bewley, Anthony W. Biebl, Janet 

M. Brady, John W. Collins, Edward A. Cutter, Wayne Delker, Warwick Every-Burns, Pam 

Fletcher, Gregory Frank, George J. Harad, Christoph Henkel, William R. Johnson, David Matz, 

Gary G. Michael, Klaus Morwind, Jan L. Murley, George C. Roeth, Glenn Savage, Edward L. 

Scarff, Michael E. Shannon, Forest N. Shumway, Daniel G. Simpson, Laura Stein, Frank Tataseo, 

Pamela Thomas-Graham, James A. Vohs, Scott Weiss, and C.A. Wolfe (collectively with 

Defendants, the “Individual Defendants”) hereby stipulate as follows: 

Procedural History 

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

Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), which was removed to this Court on 

December 1, 2006. Foster Declaration. ¶ 2; Docket Item No. 1.1 

2. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts derivative claims on behalf of Clorox 

against the Individual Defendants. Foster Decl. ¶ 3. 

3. On December 22, 2006, Clorox moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.1 and 41(b), approximately one month before the 

January 19, 2007 response deadline established by the parties’ stipulation, which this Court 

granted on December 6, 2006. Id. ¶ 4; See Docket Item No. 7; 

 

1

 Citations to the “Foster Declaration” are to the Declaration of Mark Foster (see Docket Item 

No. 20) 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 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 6
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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 2

sf-2312855 

Previous Stipulations

4. On January 10, 2007, this Court granted the parties’ stipulation extending the time 

for Plaintiff to oppose Clorox’s motion to dismiss and extending the time for the Individual 

Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint unless and until thirty days after the Court 

makes the threshold determinations that demand on the Clorox’s Board of Directors (“Board”) is 

excused and Plaintiff has standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 to proceed 

with her derivative claims on behalf of Clorox against the Individual Defendants. 

Foster Decl. ¶ 5; Docket Item No. 15. 

5. On February 13, 2007, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation extending the time 

for Plaintiff to oppose Clorox’s motion to dismiss and providing that an initial case management 

conference should not be held unless and until 45 days after the Court rules that Plaintiff has 

standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 to proceed with her derivative claims 

on behalf of Clorox against the Individual Defendants; Foster Decl. ¶ 6; Docket Item No. 18. 

Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition To Clorox’s Motion To Dismiss 

6. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), Plaintiff 

hereby states that she does not oppose Clorox’s motion to dismiss (Docket Item No. 7). 

7. Plaintiff will send a letter (the “Demand Letter”) to Clorox’s current Board no later 

than May 30, 2007, to demand that the Board take action in response to the facts and allegations 

set forth in the Demand Letter. 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, that: 

1. Clorox’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket Item No. 7) is 

granted without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a second amended complaint (“SAC”) within 30 days 

of the Board’s response to the Demand Letter. The hearing on Clorox’s motion to dismiss, 

scheduled for May 22, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., is vacated. 

2. This action shall be stayed pending the filing of a SAC. 

3. If the Board refuses to institute the action demanded by Plaintiff, Plaintiff may, at 

her discretion, file the SAC. 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 6
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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 3

sf-2312855 

4. The Individual Defendants will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to 

the SAC or any further amended complaint permitted by the Court unless and until 30 days after 

the Court rules that Plaintiff has standing to proceed with derivative claims against the Individual 

Defendants, consistent with the Stipulation and Order granted on January 10, 2007 (Docket Item 

No. 15). 

5. An initial case management conference will not be held unless and until 45 days 

after the Court rules that Plaintiff has standing to proceed with derivative claims asserted in a 

SAC or any further amended complaint permitted by the Court, consistent with the Stipulation 

and Order granted on February 13, 2007 (Docket Item No. 18). 

6. By entering into this Stipulation, the Clorox and the Individual Defendants do not 

waive, and expressly reserve all defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, that they may have. 

Dated: April 27, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Fax: (415) 268-7522 

By: /s/ Judson 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 

William F. Ausfahl, Peter Bewley, Anthony W. 

Biebl, Janet M. Brady, John W. Collins, Edward A. 

Cutter, Wayne Delker, Warwick Every-Burns, Pam 

Fletcher, Gregory Frank, George J. Harad, 

Christoph Henkel, William R. Johnson, David 

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

Murley, George C. Roeth, Glenn Savage, Edward 

L. Scarff, Michael E. Shannon, Forest N. 

Shumway, Daniel G. Simpson, Laura Stein, Frank 

Tataseo, Pamela Thomas-Graham, James A. Vohs, 

Scott Weiss, and C.A. Wolfe 

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 5 of 6
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: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION; CASE NO. C-06-7370-MJJ 4

sf-2312855 

DATED: April 27, 2007 ROBBINS UMEDA & FINK, LLP 

610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 525-3990 

 Fax: (619) 525-3991 

By: /s/ Steven J. Simerlein [e-filing signature] 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ____________________, 2007 

Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

United States District Court Judge 

* * *** 

ECF ATTESTATION 

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

(Docket Item No 19): 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER: (1) GRANTING CLOROX’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING LITIGATION 

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

Steven J. Simerlein have concurred in this filing. 

DATED: April 27, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

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

5/3

Case 3:06-cv-07370-MJJ Document 21 Filed 05/08/07 Page 6 of 6