Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08162/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08162-2/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allstate Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., et. al., 

Defendants. 

Ronald Covin, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Lead Case No. CV-09-8162-PCT-GMS

Consolidated with:

Case No. CV-09-1874-PCT-GMS

AMENDED ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Amend their respective

complaints (Dkt. # 109), and Defendants’ Motion requesting a new briefing schedule as well

as permission to both consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page

limits (Dkt. # 115). The Court grants both Motions. 

To begin, Plaintiffs move to amend their respective complaints pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Here, it appears that the proposed amendment, which is

unopposed, has been made in good faith and will facilitate a determination of the issues on

the merits. See United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court

therefore, grants the Motion to Amend. 

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 120 Filed 03/03/10 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 -

The Court also grants Defendants’ Motion for a new briefing schedule and their

request to consolidate the motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limitations.

While Plaintiffs desire to proceed with the currently pending motions to dismiss, the Court

finds that such an approach would ultimately prove to be confusing and inefficient. The

issues in this case appear to be complex, multifarious, and may be time consuming. Thus,

permitting the parties to proceed based on Defendants’ new briefing schedule will simplify

and consolidate the various issues presented by the amended complaints. Moreover, because

the amended complaints may obviate the need to address some of the issues presented in the

original motions to dismiss, Defendants’ proposed briefing schedule allows the parties to

ensure that only those issues that are pertinent to the amended complaints are raised in the

motions to dismiss. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Amend their Complaints is GRANTED (Dkt. # 109);

(2) Plaintiff Allstate is directed to file its Amended Complaint and the Class-Action

Plaintiffs are directed to file their Second Amended Complaint and serve the

amended pleadings on all parties under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order;

(3) Defendants’ Motion requesting a new briefing schedule and permission to both

consolidate their motions to dismiss and exceed local rule 7.2(e) page limits is

GRANTED (Dkt. # 115);

(4) Defendants SHALL have forty-five (45) days, or until April 16, 2010, to file

new motions to dismiss; Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (days), or until June 1,

2010 to respond; and Defendants will have twenty-one days (21), or until June

22, 2010 to file their replies. No further extensions to these deadlines will be

granted; 

(5) Defendants SHALL strictly adhere to the following page limitations when filing

their motions to dismiss: Underwriters–40 pages, The Town of Prescott

Valley–17 pages, The Law Firms–30 pages, The Fain Entities–17, pages; TL

Hocking & Associates–17 pages, T h e Authority–17 pages, Global

Entertainment–17 pages, and Prescott Valley Event Center–17 pages; 

(6) The following Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 75, 76, 80, 81,

& 85; 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 120 Filed 03/03/10 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 -

(7) The following requests for judicial notice are DENIED as moot: Dkt. ## 73 &

106.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08162-GMS Document 120 Filed 03/03/10 Page 3 of 3