Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03836-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\~7832054.doc

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

 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN, LLP

114 SANSOME STREET

 4TH FLOOR

 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94101-3812

 TELEPHONE: (415) 249-8330

 FAX: (415) 249-8333

James C. Krieg/Calif. Bar No. 77069 

jkrieg@kksrr.com

Stanley G. Roman/Calif. Bar No. 87652 

sroman@kksrr.com

Attorneys for McGuireWoods LLP 

 BEUS GILBERT PLLC

 4800 NORTH SCOTTSDALE ROAD, SUITE 6000

 SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85251

 TELEPHONE: (480) 429-3000

 FAX: (480) 429-3100

Leo R. Beus/Ariz. Bar No. 002687 (Pro hac vice) 

lbeus@beusgilbert.com

Malcolm Loeb/Calif. Bar No. 130026 

mloeb@beusgilbert.com

Attorneys for Crown Paper Liquidating Trust 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

CROWN VANTAGE, INC., 

 Debtor. 

 Employer I.D. # 54-1752384 

Case No.: C02-03836 MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING 

HEARING AND BRIEFING DATES FOR 

DEFENDANT MCGUIREWOODS LLP’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Dept. Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 429 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\~7832054.doc 

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

CROWN PAPER LIQUIDATING TRUST, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP f/k/a 

COOPERS & LYBRAND; ERNST & YOUNG; 

McGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTH; 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO.; MERRILL, 

LYNCH, PIERCE FENNER & SMITH; 

SALOMON BROS.; DONALDSON, LUFKIN 

& JENRETTE; HOULIHAN LOKEY 

HOWARD & ZUKIN; CLIFFORD CUTCHINS; 

STEPHEN HARE; ERNEST LEOPOLD; E. 

LEE SHOWALTER; ROBERT C. WILLIAMS; 

WILLIAM DANIEL; and JOSEPH T. 

PIEMONT,

 Defendants. 

Pursuant to Rule 6-2 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of California and FED. R.

CIV. P. 54(d)(2)(6), Defendant McGuireWoods LLP (“McGuireWoods”) and Plaintiff Crown Paper 

Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”) stipulate as follows and respectfully request that the Court enter their 

proposed order. 

WHEREAS on July 12, 2004, this Court granted Defendant McGuireWoods’ Motion to 

Dismiss this action with prejudice; 

The Trust filed its Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on August 10, 2004. The parties have 

completed briefing and are awaiting notification from the Ninth Circuit of the date for oral 

argument. 

On July 28, 2004, McGuireWoods filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees arguing that 

McGuireWoods was entitled to attorneys’ fees under the terms of an Option and Settlement 

Agreement, but requesting that the Court defer ruling on the attorneys’ fees Motion until 

proceedings in the Delaware Chancery Court (the “Delaware Action”) involving the Option and 

Settlement Agreement were resolved; 

On January 12, 2005, this Court issued an Order finding that “because significant issues 

concerning the contract under which McGuireWoods seeks an award of attorneys’ fees are pending 

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 429 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\~7832054.doc 

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

in the Delaware Action, the Court finds it appropriate to deny the Motion at this time, without 

prejudice to refiling it upon completion of the proceedings in Delaware.” The Court held that 

McGuireWoods could refile its attorneys’ fee motion no later than fourteen (14) days after entry of a 

final judgment in the Delaware Action; 

The Delaware Action was dismissed without prejudice on December 21, 2005; 

On or about December 23, 2005, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to the 

Court seeking an extension of time for McGuireWoods to file its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees from 

January 4, 2006 to March 3, 2006; 

On or about December 27, 2005, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation and ordered that 

the last day for McGuireWoods to file its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be continued from January 4, 

2006 to March 3, 2006; 

On March 3, 2006, McGuireWoods filed its Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees and Expenses and supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities; 

The parties have continued to discuss a resolution of McGuireWoods’ claim for attorneys’ 

fees that will not require the Court to consider or rule upon the factually and legally complex issues 

involved in that motion. In addition, further proceedings in related litigation, Crown Paper Co., et 

al. v. Fort James Corp., et al., Case No. C02-3838MMC, may simplify some of those issues. 

Therefore, the parties agree that McGuireWoods will withdraw its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

without prejudice to reasserting the claim in this Court if (a) the case is remanded from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals to the District Court following Crown’s appeal, in which event any fees 

claims will be litigated as provided by Rule 54; or (b) the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of 

McGuireWoods, in which event the fee motion can be refiled at that time before this Court; 

The parties note for the Court’s consideration that the Advisory Committee’s Note for FED.

R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2)(b) provides that: “If an appeal on the merits is taken, the [District] Court may 

rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without 

prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(b) a new period for filing after the appeal has been 

resolved.” [Emphasis added]; 

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 429 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\~7832054.doc 

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

The requested extension of time will save the Court and the parties substantial time and 

expense but will not have an adverse effect on the schedule of this case because the Trust’s appeal of 

this Court’s Order granting McGuireWoods’ Motion to Dismiss is still pending before the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals and no notice of hearing has issued.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT, upon Court 

approval of this stipulation, McGuirewoods shall be deemed to have withdrawn its Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees without prejudice to refiling the Motion if (a) the case is remanded from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals to the District Court in which event any fees claims will be litigated as 

provided by Rule 54; or (b) the Ninth Circuit affirms, in which event McGuireWoods’ fee motion 

will be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 

STIPULATED AND AGREED: 

DATED: March 27, 2006 Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman, LLP 

By /s/ 

Stan G. Roman/Calif. Bar No. 87652 

114 Sansome Street, 4th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94101-3812 

Attorneys for Defendant McGuireWoods LLP 

DATED: March 28, 2006 BEUS GILBERT PLLC

By /s/ 

Leo R. Beus/Ariz. Bar No. 002687 

Malcolm Loeb/Calif. Bar No. 130026 

4800 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 6000 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Attorneys for Plaintiff Crown Paper Liquidating Trust 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2006 

 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:02-cv-03836-MMC Document 429 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 4