DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION

Robert C. Weaver, Jr., OSB #801350 

E-Mail: rweaver@gsblaw.com 

Gary I. Grenley, OSB #751380 

E-Mail: ggrenley@gsblaw.com 

Paul H. Trinchero, OSB #014397 

E-Mail: ptrinchero@gsblaw.com 

Eryn Karpinski Hoerster, OSB #106126 

E-Mail: ehoerster@gsblaw.com 

Daniel L. Keppler, OSB #923537 

E-Mail: dkeppler@gsblaw.com 

Garvey Schubert Barer 

121 SW Morrison Street, Eleventh Floor 

Portland, Oregon 97204-3141 

Telephone: (503) 228-3939 

Peter A. Wald (admitted pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: peter.wald@lw.com

Gavin M. Masuda (admitted pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: gavin.masuda@lw.com 

Nicole C. Valco (admitted pro hac vice)

E-Mail: nicole.valco@lw.com 

Marcy C. Priedeman (admitted pro hac vice)

E-Mail: marcy.priedeman@lw.com 

Latham & Watkins LLP 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Attorneys for Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP 

(Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LAWRENCE P. CIUFFITELLI, for himself 

and as Trustee of CIUFFITELLI 

REVOCABLE TRUST, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP; 

EISNERAMPER LLP; SIDLEY AUSTIN 

LLP; TONKON TORP LLP; TD 

AMERITRADE, INC.; INTEGRITY BANK 

& TRUST; and DUFF & PHELPS, LLC 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-00580-AC 

DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE 

LLP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY 

COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION 

Oral Argument Requested 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 450 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 4
Page 1 – DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION

Reply Memorandum 

Deloitte’s proposed Third-Party Complaint for Contribution (the “Deloitte Complaint”) 

against Strategic Capital Group, LLC, RP Capital, LLC, and Private Advisory Group, LLC, is 

identical to the Third-Party Complaint filed as of right by Defendant Sidley Austin LLP on 

December 10, 2018 (the “Sidley Complaint,” together with the Deloitte Complaint, 

“Complaints”). (Dkt. 422). Plaintiffs’ principal opposition to Deloitte’s Motion for Leave to 

File the Deloitte Complaint (“Motion”) is that the Sidley Complaint is improper and should be 

stricken. See Dkt. 437, at 1 (incorporating arguments made against the Sidley Complaint and 

arguing that the Motion was “based on the false premise that Sidley’s claims against the ThirdParty Defendants will remain in this action”). Plaintiffs are wrong for the reasons stated in 

Sidley’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, which Deloitte incorporates and adopts here. 

In addition, Deloitte notes Plaintiffs’ assertion that “other contribution actions will follow 

any trial of this action”—referencing the Aequitas investor actions pending before Judge 

Kathleen Dailey of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. See Dkt. 436, at 19. Plaintiffs’ 

assertion is incorrect because Judge Dailey has already permitted Deloitte to assert claims for 

contribution in those actions; and in so doing has rejected Plaintiffs’ position that contribution 

claims cannot be brought until judgments have been paid. See Declaration of Gavin M. Masuda 

in Support of Reply, Ex. 1 (Dec. 13, 2018 Hr’g Tr. in Charles Ramsdell v. Deloitte & Touche, 

LLP, No. 16CV40659) at 29:5-9; see also Diamond Foods, Inc. v. Hottrix, LLC, No. 14-CV03162-BLF, 2018 WL 500241, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 14 is to 

promote judicial efficiency, and leave to file a third-party claim is liberally granted in 

furtherance of that policy.”); Verd v. I-Flow, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00677, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

70807 (D. Or. May 14, 2013). Plaintiffs’ supposition that separate litigation over contribution 

rights will follow the cases already pending is unfounded. As the cases recognize, there are 

efficiencies in trying these claims together in a single action before a single jury, which will hear 

all of the relevant evidence and thereby be positioned to allocate liability (if any) among the 

parties. 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 450 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 4
Page 2 – DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION

The only unique argument Plaintiffs offer against the Deloitte Complaint is that 

Deloitte’s “delay” in filing the Deloitte Complaint somehow prejudices them. See Dkt. 437, at 3 

(arguing that Deloitte “wait[ed] nearly three years into the litigation to assert the claims” and 

there is “no justification for Deloitte’s delay”). But as this Court is aware, Deloitte did not file 

(and was not required to file) its answer to Plaintiffs’ operative complaint until November 19, 

2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1) (permitting third-party claims as a matter of right “14 days 

after serving its original answer”). The only “delay,” therefore, is the one week period between 

Deloitte’s as-of-right filing deadline (December 3, 2018), and the date on which it moved this 

Court for leave to file the Deloitte Complaint (December 11, 2018). Plaintiffs can point to no 

prejudice arising from the one-week passage of time between Deloitte’s as-of-right deadline and 

the date of its Motion—especially where the Deloitte Complaint adds nothing to this case that 

has not already been added by the Sidley Complaint and, with no case schedule in place, 

Plaintiffs have ample opportunity to respond to the Complaints in discovery. See Bird v. Keefe 

Kaplan Mar., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103435, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (noting that 

“even if the Motion [for leave to file a third-party complaint] could have been brought earlier, 

the Court is not persuaded that this delay alone justifies denying [the moving party]’s request”); 

see also Joe Hand Prods. v. Davis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172299, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 

2012) (finding motion timely because the plaintiff had “ample opportunity to respond to the 

addition” of a third party, where “the parties still ha[d] six more months to take fact discovery 

and nearly a full year before trial [was] set to begin”). 

The Sidley Complaint was filed as of right and should not be stricken. The identical 

Deloitte Complaint causes no independent prejudice to Plaintiffs and adds no incremental burden 

to the Court or this litigation, assuming the Sidley Complaint is left to stand. Deloitte’s Motion 

should be granted. 

 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 450 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 4
Page 3 – DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION

Dated: January 25, 2019 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: s/ Peter A. Wald 

Peter A. Wald (admitted pro hac vice) 

Gavin M. Masuda (admitted pro hac vice) 

Nicole C. Valco (admitted pro hac vice) 

Marcy C. Priedeman (admitted pro hac vice) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Email: peter.wald@lw.com 

gavin.masuda@lw.com 

nicole.valco@lw.com 

marcy.priedeman@lw.com 

–And– 

Nicholas J. Siciliano (admitted pro hac vice) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL 60611 

Telephone: (312) 876-7700 

Email: nicholas.siciliano@lw.com 

–And– 

Robert C. Weaver, Jr., OSB No. 801350 

Gary I. Grenley, OSB No. 751380 

Paul H. Trinchero, OSB No. 014397 

Eryn Karpinski Hoerster, OSB No. 106126 

Daniel L. Keppler, OSB No. 923537 

GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER 

121 SW Morrison Street, 11th Floor 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 228-3939 

Email: rweaver@gsblaw.com 

ggrenley@gsblaw.com 

ptrinchero@gsblaw.com 

ehoerster@gsblaw.com 

dkeppler@gsblaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 450 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 4