LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

DIGNITY PARTNERS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: DPCAL213501, CourtName: CLASS ACTION CASES, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>DPCAL213501, Dignity, Motion, Facts, Allegations, Aids, Second Amended Complaint, Defendants Deny, Paragraph, Entry, Class Action, Cir, Support, Financial Statements, Prospectus, Policies, Accrual Periods, United States, Stock, Summary Judgment, Complaint, Intervention, Steinberg, San Diego, Supp, Life Expectancy, Inference, California, Securities, Amended Complaint, Intervene, Lerach Llp, San Francisco, District Court, Misleading, Pursuant, Dignity Partners, Plead, Class Certification , ContentID: 120249652

Case Documents
1   SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122566
4 pages
TXT
2   SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY 2
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122563
5 pages
TXT
3   SUBMISSION OF RECENT DECISIONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122562
4 pages
TXT
4   STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122561
5 pages
TXT
5   STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION 2
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122560
4 pages
TXT
6   RESPONSE TO EXPEDITED MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122558
10 pages
TXT
7   REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122557
18 pages
TXT
8   REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122556
21 pages
TXT
9   REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122555
19 pages
TXT
10   REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122553
18 pages
TXT
11   REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122552
21 pages
TXT
12   PARTY AND COUNSEL LIST
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122551
3 pages
TXT
13   OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122549
16 pages
TXT
14   OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122548
26 pages
TXT
15   OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122547
32 pages
TXT
16   OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122546
14 pages
TXT
17   OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122545
5 pages
TXT
18   NOTICE OF ERRATA RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122544
2 pages
TXT
19   NOTICE OF ERRATA RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122543
2 pages
TXT
20   MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122541
3 pages
TXT
21   MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMEND COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122540
3 pages
TXT
22   MOTION TO CONTINUE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122539
4 pages
TXT
23   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122538
5 pages
PDF
24   MOTION FOR ORDER ALTERNATIVELY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122537
16 pages
TXT
25   MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122536
20 pages
TXT
26   MOTION FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122535
13 pages
TXT
27   MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122532
25 pages
TXT
28   MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122531
13 pages
TXT
29   MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122530
28 pages
TXT
30   MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122529
24 pages
TXT
31   MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122528
49 pages
TXT
32   MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122527
10 pages
TXT
33   DECLARATION OF BLAIR A NICHOLAS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122525
3 pages
TXT
34   DECLARATION OF AMBER L
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122524
3 pages
TXT
35   DECLARATION OF AMBER L ECK IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122521
7 pages
TXT
36   DECLARATION OF AMBER L ECK IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122520
5 pages
TXT
37   DECLARATION OF ALISON M TATTERSALL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122518
3 pages
TXT
38   DECLARATION OF ALISON M TATTERSALL IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122517
4 pages
TXT
39   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122516
49 pages
TXT
40   APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122515
15 pages
TXT
41   ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122514
16 pages
TXT
42   AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122513
29 pages
TXT
43 1999-05-14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122533
11 pages
PDF
44 1999-05-03 DOCKET
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122526
20 pages
TXT
45 1999-04-16 MEMORANDUM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122534
42 pages
PDF
46 1998-03-02 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122559
17 pages
TXT
47 1998-02-18 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY 4
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122565
4 pages
TXT
48 1998-01-16 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122554
12 pages
TXT
49 1997-12-24 MOTION TO INTERVENE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122542
8 pages
TXT
50 1997-12-24 DECLARATION OF AMBER L
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122523
3 pages
TXT
    and more...
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ]  
 
 
Total Documents: 54 documents , 738 pages
Price: $ 199.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANTS
COURT
DECLARANT
LLP
DISTRICT
LERACH LLP
LOCAL RULE
PURSUANT
CALIFORNIA
MILBERG WEISS
FARUQI
HERETO
EXHIBIT
STOCK
SCIENTER
ADDRESSING
UNITED STATES
CO-LEAD COUNSEL
YORK
TATTERSALL
SAN DIEGO
HYNES
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HOLDING
UNDERSTATEMENT
FRAUDULENT
COMMIT
LEXIS

   MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
   HYNES & LERACH LLP
   WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
   PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
   HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
   AMBER L. ECK (177882)
   600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Telephone: 619/231-1058
   - and -
   ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
   222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Telephone: 415/288-4545

   ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
   STEPHEN T. RODD
   PETER D. BULL
   212 East 39th Street
   New York, NY 10016
   Telephone: 212/889-3700

   Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

   (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)


                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA




   HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf
   of Themselves and All Others
   Similarly Situated,

                         Plaintiffs,

              vs.

   DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,

                         Defendants.
   ________________________________________

SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD PETER D. BULL
  • New York, NY 10016 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following recent decisions addressing issues before the
  • court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged the individual defendants' scienter where
  • See Exhibit A attached hereto.
  • plaintiffs alleged that defendants had an opportunity to commit fraud because they were the
  • The court also found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged defendants' conscious or
  • LEXIS 5329M, at *13 (D.
  • Feb. 12, 1997), the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the scienter
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP ALISON M. TATTERSALL
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP NADEEM FARUQI LUBNA M. FARUQI
  • That on July 16, 1997, declarant served the PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY

  • 2 . SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY 2

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    MERISEL
    DEFENDANTS
    COOPER
    DECLARANT
    LLP
    ALLEGATIONS
    LERACH LLP
    ALLEGES
    CIRCUIT
    PARTIES
    LOCAL RULE
    PURSUANT
    CALIFORNIA
    COURT
    DISTRICT
    UNITED STATES
    MILBERG WEISS
    FARUQI
    SHIPMENTS
    IMPROPERLY RECOGNIZING REVENUE
    DEBT
    SALES
    OVERSEAS OPERATIONS
    COMPUTERLAND ACQUISITION
    STOCK
    STANDARD SET
    CIR
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
       HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
       - and -
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf
       of Themselves and All Others
       Similarly Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       _____________________________________
    
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD PETER D. BULL
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE
  • issues before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed by the
  • While Cooper involves a pre-Private Securities Litigation Reform Act case, the Ninth Circuit
  • 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir.
  • The complaint alleges that purchased stock from Merisel, and that Merisel assured them that
  • In fact, the Computerland acquisition had plunged Merisel deep into debt, its overseas
  • With respect to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' allegations that defendants' statements were
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP WILLIAM S. LERACH PATRICK J. COUGHLIN HELEN J.
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP NADEEM FARUQI LUBNA M. FARUQI
  • That on August 14, 1997, declarant served the PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF

  • 3 . SUBMISSION OF RECENT DECISIONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SAN DIEGO
    LLP
    LERACH LLP
    LOCAL RULE
    COURT
    DECLARE
    PURSUANT
    CALIFORNIA
    DISTRICT
    HYNES
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    FARUQI
    DEFENDANTS
    UNITED STATES
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    YORK
    HODGES
    PLEADING
    PURCHASERS
    LEXIS
    OPINION
    STANDING
    MOTION
    SUBMISSION
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    BULL
    PETER
    RODD
    SQUITIERI
    
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
            - and -
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On
       Behalf of Themselves and All Others
       Similarly Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       ____________________________________
    
    
       No. C-96-4558-CAL
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD PETER D. BULL
  • New York, NY 10016 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • Plaintiffs bring to the Court's attention two recent decisions in connection with defendants'
  • Mar. 31, 1998), the court held that standing under §11 is not limited to people who purchased
  • are "wrongly decided," because "one of them address the text of §11," which clearly
  • Opinion at 21.
  • LEXIS 4227 (N.D.
  • Plaintiffs may meet the heightened pleading requirements of rule 9 and section 10, as amended
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP WILLIAM S. LERACH PATRICK J. COUGHLIN HELEN J.
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP NADEEM FARUQI LUBNA M. FARUQI
  • PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-2
  • That on April 8, 1998, declarant served the PLAINTIFFS' SUBMISSION OF RECENT DECISIONS
  • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

  • 4 . STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    SAN
    DECLARANT
    SCIENTER
    SAN FRANCISCO
    LLP
    LERACH
    HERETO
    EXHIBIT
    REASONS
    STOCK
    INFERENCE
    LOCAL RULE
    PURSUANT
    CALIFORNIA
    SAN DIEGO
    FARUQI
    DISCREET
    BESPEAKS CAUTION
    MISLEADING
    STOCK SALES
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    UNITED STATES
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    YORK
    TATTERSALL
    HYNES
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
       HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
       - and -
    
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf
       of Themselves and All Others
       Similarly Situated,
    
       Plaintiffs,
    
       vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
       Defendants.
       ___________________________________
    
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD PETER D. BULL
  • New York, NY 10016 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • Plaintiffs bring to the Court's attention three recent decisions in connection with
  • March 13, 1997), the court found that plaintiffs had adequately pled a strong inference of
  • The court further held that plaintiffs had sufficiently set forth the reasons why each of
  • See Exhibit A attached hereto.
  • In Friedberg v. Discreet Logic,
  • addressed the scienter requirements under the PSLRA finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently
  • The court further held that the statutory safe harbor and the "bespeaks caution" doctrine are
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LL WILLIAM S. LERACH PATRICK J. COUGHLIN HELEN J. HODGES
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP ALISON M. TATTERSALL
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP NADEEM FARUQI LUBNA M. FARUQI
  • DECLARATION OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-3
  • That on July 1, 1997, declarant served the STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS PURSUANT TO LOCAL

  • 5 . STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION 2

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DECLARANT
    PLAINTIFFS
    LLP
    LOCAL RULE
    LERACH LLP
    FARUQI
    PURSUANT
    CALIFORNIA
    COURT
    DISTRICT
    MILBERG WEISS
    DEFENDANTS
    UNITED STATES
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    YORK
    TATTERSALL
    SAN DIEGO
    HYNES
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    FLOOR
    ALISON
    CONTROLLING
    PLEADING
    PARTICIPATION
    FRAUDULENT
    LIABILITY
    OFFICERS
    HEALTH MANAGEMENT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
       HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
       - and -
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf
       of Themselves and All Others
       Similarly Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       _____________________________________
    
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD PETER D. BULL
  • New York, NY 10016 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • Plaintiffs bring to the Court's attention a recent decision in connection with defendants'
  • 1997) the district court held that plaintiffs had adequately plead a §10claim against the
  • "rimary liability under Rule 10b-5 may be imposed 'not only on persons who made fraudulent
  • defendants who participated in the fraudulent scheme may be liable even though they made no
  • the court applied the group pleading presumption to the officers of Health Management.
  • Finally, the court held that "a prima facie case of controlling person liability requires
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP ALISON M. TATTERSALL
  • FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP NADEEM FARUQI LUBNA M. FARUQI
  • DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE
  • That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and
  • That on July 28, 1997, declarant served the STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION PURSUANT TO LOCAL

  • 6 . RESPONSE TO EXPEDITED MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DIGNITY
    COURT
    MOTION
    POTH
    DISCLOSURE
    AIDS
    PRIVACY
    LAW
    LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
    DEFENDANTS
    CALIFORNIA
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    VIATORS
    CONFIDENTIALITY
    PRODUCTION
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    ATTORNEYS
    STATE BAR
    DIGNITY CONDUCTED BUSINESS
    SAFETY CODE
    DISCOVERY
    MEDICAL RECORDS
    FUTURE LITIGATION
    AIDS VICTIMS
    WRITTEN CONSENT
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    HIV
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968 )
       James L. Poth (State Bar No. 185042)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, California 90013-1025
       Telephone: (213) 489-3939
    
       Robert C. Micheletto
       Eric Berlin
       Susan L. Winders
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3500
       Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
       Telephone: (312) 789-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC.
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf
       of Themselves and All Others Similarly
       Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
       ____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968) James L. Poth
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Attorneys for Defendants DIGNITY PARTNERS,
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
  • Contrary to the implications of plaintiffs' motion, there is no dispute that the documents in
  • Disclosure of information regarding individuals with HIV and/or AIDS is highly regulated by
  • Certain state laws give individuals the right to consent to any disclosure and the right to
  • Thus, if Dignity simply turns the documents over to plaintiffs' counsel, it runs an
  • Plaintiffs' election to use a motion concerning the privacy rights of individuals suffering
  • The privacy interest at issue revolves around the right of non-parties to control access to
  • The individuals with whom Dignity conducted business pre-authorized the disclosure of these
  • Contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, however, at no time did any of the viators consent to
  • Plaintiffs' attempt to avoid the difficult privacy issues involved by pointing to Dignity's
  • At least one of the states where Dignity's business was concentrated, New York, requires
  • This concern arises from the fact that the strong public policy of protecting the privacy of
  • Dignity does not, however, seek to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining access to the
  • The Court Should Determine Whether California's AIDS Research Confidentiality Act Applies.
  • Health & Safety Code § 121075.
  • Although redacting the names of viators would allow production of documents without

  • 7 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    FACTS
    SCIENTER
    INFERENCE
    PLEAD
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    DIGNITY
    DEFICIENT
    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    MEM
    SUPP
    CIR
    LITIG
    LEXIS
    DIRECTORS
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    PLEAD FACTS SUPPORTING
    ACCOUNTING
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    STOCK PRICE
    AIDS
    SECURITIES FRAUD CLAIMS
    STEINBERG
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    HERTZBERG
    LOS ANGELES
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
       ____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED
  • BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THAT THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE UNCHANGED, THEY HAVE ONCE AGAIN FAILED
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS' CHARGE THAT DIGNITY'S FINANCIAL
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO AMEND THE "INFORMATION AND BELIEF" ALLEGATIONS THIS COURT FOUND
  • LEXIS 23780 (9th Cir.
  • In re Clearly Canadian Sec. Litig., 875 F. Supp.
  • In re Colonial Ltd. Partnership Litig.,
  • Hirsch v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 72 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.
  • In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig.,
  • Tosti v. Los Angeles,
  • Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have not meaningfully amended the allegations the Court
  • Indeed, independent auditors, KPMG Peat Marwick, scrutinized Dignity's accounting practices
  • The only thing new in the Second Amended Complaint -- the addition of Mr. Steinberg in an
  • Mem.
  • Similarly deficient are plaintiffs' repeated conclusory allegations that the individual
  • Plaintiffs have strained to create a claim of alleged accounting fraud on the basis of only
  • Similarly unavailing is plaintiffs' effort to downplay the significance of the absence of any
  • Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, dispute that securities fraud claims should be dismissed at
  • Gerald W. Palmer Attorneys for defendants Dignity Partners, Inc., et al.
  • 15 Nor do plaintiffs respond to defendants' argument that the immateriality of the 4th

  • 8 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    CIR
    DIGNITY
    JUDGEMENT
    SUPP
    COURT
    MARKET
    STOCK PRICE
    PROSPECTUS
    SUPPORT
    OMISSION
    LOSS CAUSATION
    EVIDENCE
    MATERIALITY
    AIDS TREATMENTS
    ALLEGED FRAUD
    DISCLOSURE
    ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGY
    IMMATERIALITY
    SECURITY LITIGATION
    PRICE DECLINE
    OMITTED INFORMATION
    PLAINTIFFS ARGUE
    APPLE COMPUTER
    DISTRICT COURT
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    MISLEADING
    LEXIS
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       Robert C. Micheletto
       Eric P. Berlin
       Susan L. Winders
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       JEFFREY FEINMAN and CHARLES
       STEINBERG, on behalf of themselves and all
       others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       ______________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
  • F. Supp.
  • LEXIS 7167 (S.D.N.Y.
  • In re Apple Computer Security Litigation, 886 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir.
  • Plaintiffs have failed to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to any of the
  • It is upon this fact that defendants base their argument that plaintiffs cannot prove that
  • * Plaintiffs do not dispute that Dignity's 4th quarter collection results were accurately
  • * Finally, plaintiffs do not dispute that the Oppenheimer report that precipitated the June
  • It is upon these facts that defendants base their arguments that plaintiffs cannot prove loss
  • Forced to concede these facts, and without any relevant, admissible evidence of their own,
  • Application of well-settled, dispositive case law to the undisputed facts of this case
  • Indeed, not only have they failed to provide any evidence which could support a finding that
  • In re Apple Computer, 886 F.2d at 1114-1115 (upholding summary judgment for defendants in a
  • it is wholly irrelevant that the articles did not mention Dignity or its accounting
  • the information that plaintiffs admit was widely reported and known to the market regarding
  • Plaintiffs argue further that Dignity's alleged inability to accurately estimate life
  • plaintiffs cannot now escape summary judgment by arguing that the very same information was
  • Plaintiffs admit, as they must, that Dignity's June 26, 1996 stock price decline was

  • 9 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    CLASS CERTIFICATION
    DIGNITY
    CLASS ACTION
    TATTERSALL
    STOCK
    CLASS PERIOD
    SAN FRANCISCO
    CONFLICT
    MOTION
    CIRCUIT
    LERACH LLP
    PRICE
    SHARES
    DISTRICT COURT
    UNITED STATES
    REPRESENTATION
    CLASS MEMBERS
    MEMORANDUM
    STEINBERG
    CALIFORNIA
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    PURCHASERS
    PRESUMPTION
    UNIQUE DEFENSES
    ABBEY
    SAN DIEGO
    CURATIVE DISCLOSURE
    
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
            - and -
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       JAMES J. SEIRMARCO (194307)
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On
       Behalf of Themselves and All Others
       Similarly Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
                             Defendants.
       ____________________________________
    
    
       No. C-96-4558-CAL
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP STEPHEN T. RODD JAMES J. SEIRMARCO PETER D. BULL
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
  • Defendants' Effort To Rebut the Fraud On The Market Presumption Fails As A Matter Of Law
  • Steinberg And DeRosa Are Not Subject To Unique Defenses
  • THE COURT SHOULD REJECT DEFENDANTS' EFFORTS TO MANIPULATE THE PLAINTIFFS' CLASS PERIOD FOR
  • The Issue Of Alleged "Curative Disclosure" Announcements Raises Questions Of Fact Going
  • The Ninth Circuit Rejects The Hypothetical "Seller-Purchaser" Conflict
  • Defendants challenge only the typicality of plaintiffs' claims, conceding through their
  • at 71, 75 and 83), is aware of his fiduciary duties as a class representative and is willing
  • A-D to the declaration of Alison M. Tattersall ("Tattersall Decl.,
  • The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit agree that the presumption of these plaintiffs' reliance
  • Defendants offer not a shred of evidence that plaintiffs would have purchased their shares at
  • Finally, relying on arguments which have been expressly rejected by the Ninth Circuit and
  • Courts recognize that, in these circumstances, defendants are not concerned with the "best"
  • A few courts have, in exceptional circumstances, determined that a class representative's
  • Not only is Seagate II in direct conflict with controlling Ninth Circuit authority, but,
  • As the Ninth Circuit held in Blackie, "because the major portion of the inflation is
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP ALISON M. TATTERSALL

  • 10 . REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    FACTS
    INFERENCE
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    SUPPORT
    DIGNITY
    PLEAD
    MEM
    CIR
    SUPP
    FAIL
    FACTS DEMONSTRATING
    COURT
    COMPLAINT
    ACCRUAL PERIODS
    REFORM ACT
    PROSPECTUS
    TREATMENT
    DISMISS PURSUANT
    LOS ANGELES
    AIDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    PUBLIC OFFERING
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    CALIFORNIA
    LEXIS
    PLEAD SCIENTER
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    UNITED STATES
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA and
       JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of themselves
       and all others similarly situated,
    
                      Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                      Defendants.
    
       ______________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • DEFENDANTS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
  • RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE 1995 REFORM ACT
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD FACTS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE FALSE
  • Plaintiffs' Alleged "Facts" Fail To Support Their Inferences
  • The Increase In Policies Collected Late Does Not Support Plaintiffs' Inference That The
  • Plaintiffs' Conclusory Allegations Regarding Defendants' yAlleged Knowledge Of The Efficacy
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD SCIENTER
  • LEXIS 23780 (9th Cir.
  • 845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir.
  • Ferber v. Travelers Corp., 802 F. Supp.
  • Plaintiffs' Complaint consists of precisely the sort of speculative pleading, long on
  • Mem.
  • Plaintiffs contend they have met this burden because they identify the allegedly false allegedly had been found.
  • Plaintiffs incorrectly argue that defendants are improperly asking the Court to decide
  • defendants demonstrated that plaintiffs' allegation that "he proportion of policies which
  • In response, plaintiffs claim that the charts in paragraph 26 of their Complaint, taken
  • DEFENDANTS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

  • 11 . REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ALLEGATIONS
    FACTS
    DEFENDANTS
    SUPPORT
    COURT
    COMPLAINT
    DIGNITY
    FALSITY
    MEM
    CIR
    DISMISS
    MOTION
    FRAUD
    PLEAD
    JONES
    REFORM ACT
    LEXIS
    DIGNITY STOCK
    LOSS CAUSATION
    ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    SPECULATION
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    DISCLOSURES
    PLEAD SCIENTER
    CONTENTION
    PLEADING STANDARDS
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    COLLECTION EXPERIENCE
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.
    
                             Defendants.
       ________________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
       Civ. No. 96-C-4558 (CAL)
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.
  • DEFENDANTS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT
  • PLAINTIFFS MAY NOT BASE A CASE ON THEIR INFORMATION AND BELIEF ALLEGATIONS OF FALSITY
  • The Few Facts That Plaintiffs Plead Do Not Support Their Belief That Dignity's
  • The Prospectus's Failure To Disclose The Collection Experience For The Fourth Quarter Of 1995
  • PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD SCIENTER
  • LEXIS 2797 (N.D.
  • 13 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir.
  • In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig., No. C 96-0393, 1996 U.S. Dist.
  • Plaintiffs would have this Court ignore Congress' clear intent to strengthen the requirements
  • the Court is required to scrutinize plaintiffs' speculations in light of the appropriate
  • Furthermore, plaintiffs have failed to plead the scienter and loss causation elements of
  • Mem.
  • Plaintiffs provide absolutely no factual support for the following information and belief
  • Because plaintiffs have thus failed to actually plead facts showing that Dignity's life
  • Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Cooper did not "specifically rejectdefendants' argument
  • Plaintiffs further argue that they have pleaded "circumstances suggesting fraudulent intent"

  • 12 . PARTY AND COUNSEL LIST

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    COUGHLIN
    PATRICK
    JEFFREY FEINMAN
    CALIFORNIA
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    DISTRICT COURT
    
    3:96cv4558 Hertzberg, et al v. Dignity Partners, et al            PROTO
                                                                      APPEAL
                                                                PROTO  APPEAL
                           U.S. District Court
      U.S. District for the Northern District of California (S.F.)
    
    
    HOWARD HERTZBERG                  Patrick J. Coughlin
         Plaintiff                    (COR LD NTC)
                                      Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
                                      Lerach LLP
                                      600 W Broadway Ste 1800
                                      One America Plaza
                                      San Diego, CA 92101
                                      (619) 231-1058
    
                                      Nadeem Faruqi
                                      (COR NTC)
                                      Faruqui & Faruqui
                                      415 Madison Ave 21st Flr
                                      New York, NY 10017
                                      (212) 986-1074
    
                                      Stephen T. Rodd
                                      (COR NTC)
                                      Abbey Gardy & Squitieri LLP
                                      212 East 39th St
                                      New York, NY 10016
                                      (212) 889-3700
    
                                      Reed R. Kathrein
                                      (COR LD NTC)
                                      222 Kearny St. 10th Floor
                                      San Francisco, CA 94108
                                      (415)288-4545
    
    
    JOHN DEROSA                       Patrick J. Coughlin
         Plaintiff                    (See above)
                                      (COR LD NTC)
    
                                      Nadeem Faruqi
                                      (See above)
                                      (COR NTC)
    
                                      Stephen T. Rodd
                                      (See above)
                                      (COR NTC)
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. District Court
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California
  • JEFFREY FEINMAN, On Behalf of Patrick J. Coughlin
  • Plaintiff

  • 13 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    STEINBERG
    INTERVENTION
    COURT
    INTERVENE
    DEFENDANTS
    UNITED STATES
    CLASS ACTION
    FEINMAN
    DEROSA
    HERTZBERG
    PREJUDICE
    CIR
    REASON
    FILING
    LEAD PLAINTIFFS
    UNDULY PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS
    INTERVENE PURSUANT
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    CHARLES STEINBERG
    CALIFORNIA
    CLASS MEMBERS
    SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS
    MOTION SEEKING
    PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION
    CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    DELAYED FILING
    LOS ANGELES
    PUTATIVE CLASS
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
       _____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF CHARLES STEINBERG TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO
  • There is No Good Reason For Steinberg To Have Delayed Filing His Intervention Motion For One
  • Permitting Steinberg To Intervene Would Unduly Prejudice Defendants
  • STEINBERG'S INTERVENTION MOTION IS CONTRARY TO THE REFORM ACT'S PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
  • 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.
  • Charles Steinberg seeks to intervene in this action to assert a claim that this Court has
  • It was only after this Court dismissed the Section 11 claims for the second time, with
  • The motion also is unnecessary and should be denied because Steinberg's interests are already
  • Plaintiffs Hertzberg, DeRosa and Feinman, represented by Milberg, Weiss and other firms,
  • Represented by Milberg, Weiss and the other lawyers representing plaintiffs in the federal
  • Notwithstanding his admission and that the standards for permissive intervention under Rule he standards for permissive intervention under Rule 24.
  • that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of
  • Congress further directed courts to consider any motions by plaintiffs or purported class
  • On February 13, 1997, close to the 60 day deadline, Steinberg's lawyers filed a motion

  • 14 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    DIGNITY
    FACTS
    COMPLAINT
    COURT
    MOTION
    AIDS
    PSLRA
    LIABILITY
    PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
    DISMISS
    MISLEADING
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    ACCRUAL PERIODS
    LIFE EXPECTANCY
    PROSPECTUS
    PLAINTIFFS ADEQUATELY PLEAD
    LERACH LLP
    ACCOUNTING
    ALLEGATIONS
    TREATMENTS
    CALIFORNIA
    UNITED STATES
    DISCLOSURE
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    LOSS CAUSATION
    AIDS PATIENTS
    DEFENDANT VOLBERDING
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
       HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
       - and -
    
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf of
       Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
    
       Plaintiffs,
    
       vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
       Defendants.
       __________________________________________
    
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
  • AND THE PSLRA
  • Plaintiffs Adequately Plead Defendants' Liability For False And Misleading Statements
  • Plaintiffs' Allegations That The Accrual Periods Should Have Been Adjusted Are Sufficient
  • The Prospectus Failed To Disclose Material Facts, Precluding A Determination As A Matter Of
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED LOSS CAUSATION
  • Plaintiffs' claims are based on a scheme by defendants to "take Dignity public" in order for
  • Defendants accomplished this scheme by inflating the price of Dignity common stock through a
  • Just five months after defendants cashed out with the initial public offering, Dignity
  • the Complaint meets the pleading requirements in this circuit.
  • Rather than respond to plaintiffs' factually detailed allegations, defendants claim that the
  • in their effort to convince the Court that their public statements somehow adequately
  • Defendants also falsely claim that the fundamental shift in life expectancy for persons with
  • Dignity's method of accounting was in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
  • defendants knew long before July 1996 that treatments for the AIDS virus and secondary
  • A short period of time between defendants' allegedly false representations and the disclosure
  • Defendant Volberding, a Dignity board member and preeminent AIDS researcher, allegedly
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP WILLIAM S. LERACH PATRICK J. COUGHLIN HELEN J.

  • 15 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DIGNITY
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    MOTION
    AIDS
    POLICIES
    DISTRICT COURT
    PROSPECTUS
    STOCK PRICE
    ARTICLES
    SAN DIEGO
    LIFE EXPECTANCY
    ACCRUAL PERIODS
    AIDS TREATMENTS
    ACCOUNTING
    CLASS PERIOD
    LERACH LLP
    ACCOUNTING METHOD
    DISCLOSURE
    ANALYST REPORTS
    PAST EXPECTED COLLECTION
    MISLEADING
    LOSS CAUSATION
    REVENUE RECOGNITION
    VIATICAL SETTLEMENT
    UNITED STATES
    IPO
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    
       MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
       WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
       PATRICK J. COUGHLIN (111070)
       HELEN J. HODGES (131674)
       AMBER L. ECK (177882)
       600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: 619/231-1058
            - and -
       ALISON M. TATTERSALL (149607)
       222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
       ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP
       STEPHEN T. RODD
       PETER D. BULL
       212 East 39th Street
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: 212/889-3700
            - and -
       JAMES J. SEIRMARCO (194307)
       595 Market Street
       Suite 2500
       San Francisco, CA 94105
       Telephone: 415/538-3725
    
       Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
       (Additional counsel appear on signature page.)
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, et al., On Behalf of
       Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  vs.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       ______________________________________
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
  • On February 14, 1996, defendants obtained over $34 million from the public in an initial
  • The Prospectus assured investors that Dignity's business was profitable and expanding, that
  • defendants revealed that Dignity's business was not viable and that the Company had ceased
  • Shortly thereafter Dignity changed its name and got out of the viatical settlement business
  • Defendants now move for summary judgment on just two issues: "truth on the market";
  • Their first argument is based on the faulty premise that plaintiffs' case turns on the
  • They submit over two hundred articles about AIDS and AIDS treatments between 1994 and 1996,
  • Recent controlling Ninth Circuit law -- ignored in defendants' brief -- compels the denial of
  • Submitting no evidence other than counsel's bare assertions, defendants argue that because
  • However, defendants have failed to meet the heavy burden imposed by Ninth Circuit law, again
  • Notably, some of defendants' assertions, in particular those regarding violations of
  • The IPO also provided over $25 million in proceeds to Dignity.
  • Dignity was experiencing a dramatic decline in "acceptable" viator applications and viatical
  • The progression of terminal illness other than AIDS may be less predictable, making estimates
  • Dignity's Accrual Accounting Method
  • In addition, Dignity's financial statements were false and misleading because Dignity did not
  • Dignity's failure to disclose this fact, coupled with its failure to properly adjust its
  • When Dignity explained its revenue recognition method to the SEC on August 7, 1995, Dignity
  • K, L. The two analyst reports published by Oppenheimer during the Class Period -- on April 26
  • they simply ask that the Court draw an inference in their favor based on their counsel's
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP WILLIAM S. LERACH PATRICK J. COUGHLIN HELEN J.

  • 16 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
    COURT
    STANDING
    DEFENDANTS
    MOTION
    LITIGATION
    CONTROLLING
    DISTRICT COURT
    LAW
    SUPP
    DISPOSITION
    UNITED STATES
    SUBSTANTIAL GROUND
    PURSUANT
    OPINION
    GUSTAFSON
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
    ANTITRUST LITIG
    OPPOSITION
    PUBLIC OFFERING
    STANDING ANALYSIS
    EXCEPTION
    TERMINATION
    ATTORNEYS
    LEGAL STANDARD
    LEXIS
    SEEKING CERTIFICATION
    HOTEL EMPLOYEES
    
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
       _____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • The Issue Of Section 11 Standing Is Not A "Controlling Issue Of Law" Because A Reversal Of
  • Arthur Young & Co. v. United States District Court,
  • In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.,
  • F. Supp.
  • LEXIS 317 (N.D.
  • Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 2 v. Marriott Corp., No. C-89-2707, 1993
  • Plaintiffs have failed completely to meet their burden of demonstrating that any one, let
  • Plaintiffs' argument, that a reversal would make it easier for them to litigate their claims
  • None of plaintiffs' post-Gustafson cases from this Circuit are at odds with this Court's
  • Plaintiffs' arguments amount to little more than disagreement with this Court's ruling and a
  • For all these reasons, discussed more fully below, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion
  • Plaintiffs' amended Section 11 claims again failed to allege that plaintiffs purchased their
  • Interlocutory appeals are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which "is to be applied sparingly and
  • 1995) (an interlocutory appeal is an exception to "the basic rule that appellate review
  • plaintiffs' arguments on this point are really no more than a verbatim restatement of the

  • 17 . OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MOTION
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    INTERVENTION MOTION
    DISMISS
    DISTRICT COURT
    RULING
    COUNSEL
    SEEKING
    FILING
    OPPOSITION
    STEINBERG
    REQUIRING
    DIGNITY
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    LITIGATION
    PRACTICALITY
    RESOLUTION
    PURSUANT
    CERTIFICATION
    SECURITIES ACT
    PLEAD
    CALIFORNIA STATE COURT
    STANDING
    SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
    CIRCUIT
    
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
       ________________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TIME TO FILE
  • the Court and defendants await plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
  • On December 5, 1997, this Court dismissed for the second time plaintiffs' complaint for
  • On December 18, plaintiffs shifted their approach by filing a motion seeking certification of
  • In response to a request for a stipulated continuance of the filing date, defendants' counsel
  • no interlocutory appeal would be required and neither the Court nor the parties would be
  • On December 24, plaintiffs filed yet another motion, this time seeking permissive
  • The only basis plaintiffs offer for their Second Stay Motion is their contention that a
  • This argument does not address the concern raised by defendants -- that the interlocutory
  • The argument also is flawed even ignoring its failure to address the concerns of practicality.
  • If the Court were to grant the Interlocutory Appeal Motion, that ruling would have absolutely
  • The Ninth Circuit, "in its discretion," may accept or reject such an application, and such an
  • Thus, in pleading the substantive factual allegations of their second amended Section 10b
  • Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, defendants will file their opposition to that motion on January
  • As defendants will demonstrate in more detail in the opposition brief they will file on
  • resolution of the Section 11 standing issue will not materially advance the termination of
  • As defendants will demonstrate in more detail in the opposition brief they will file on
  • Mr. Steinberg's tactics are especially objectionable because, represented by these same

  • 18 . NOTICE OF ERRATA RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    OPPOSITION
    CORRECTING
    PURSUANT
    ORDER CERTIFYING
    MOTION
    ERRATA
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    DISTRICT
    ATTORNEYS
    SUITE
    PALMER
    GERALD
    UNSTAMPED PAPER
    DISKETTE FILE
    LITIGATION
    TERMINATION
    STANDING
    INTERPLAY BETWEN PLAINTIFFS
    SUM
    TAB
    HERETO
    TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR SET
    DEFENDANTS HEREBY
    LEGGE
    JUDGE CHARLES
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
    
       _____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Gerald W. Palmer
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • Judge Charles A. Legge
  • DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER CERTIFYING FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
  • Defendants hereby submit this Notice of Errata correcting a typographical error set forth in
  • Attached hereto at Tab 1 is a true and correct copy of the Opposition which reflects the
  • In sum, given the interplay betwen plaintiffs' Section 10and Section 11 claims, an immediate
  • Diskette file and unstamped paper copy from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

  • 19 . NOTICE OF ERRATA RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    CHARLES STEINBERG
    OPPOSITION
    CIV
    WIRE
    BUSINESS
    CORRECTING
    INTERVENE PURSUANT
    MOTION
    ERRATA
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    PLAINTIFFS
    FEINMAN
    DEROSA
    HERTZBERG
    DISTRICT
    ATTORNEYS
    SUITE
    PALMER
    GERALD
    UNSTAMPED PAPER
    DISKETTE FILE
    WIRE SERVICE
    WIDELY-CIRCULATED NATIONAL BUSINESS
    TAB
    HERETO
    TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR SET
    
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
    
       _____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Gerald W. Palmer
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • R. CIV.
  • Defendants hereby submit this Notice of Errata correcting a typographical error set forth in
  • Attached hereto at Tab 1 is a true and correct copy of the Opposition which reflects the
  • Steinberg was on notice of this action as of December 19, 1996, when plaintiffs Hertzberg,
  • Diskette file and unstamped paper copy from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

  • 20 . MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MOTION
    UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    COUNSEL
    DISMISS
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    CALIFORNIA
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    ATTORNEYS
    ROTTER
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    COURTROOM
    REFORM ACT
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    PURSUANT
    LEGGE
    CHARLES
    JUDGE
    PLAINTIFFS
    JOHN
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    SUITE
    PALMER
    GERALD
    DISKETTE
    AUTHORITIES
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
                  v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
       ____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Gerald W. Palmer
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • Judge Charles A. Legge
  • DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
  • DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULES 9AND 12OF THE FEDERAL
  • RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE 1995 REFORM ACT
  • Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 10
  • TO: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
  • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December ___, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel
  • Defendants Dignity Partners, Inc., Bradley N. Rotter, Alan B. Perper, John Ward Rotter,
  • 737, respectfully move this Court to enter an order dismissing the Amended Complaint in its
  • and Authorities, the entire file in this action, and the arguments made or evidence submitted
  • Diskette from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue

  • 21 . MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMEND COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MOTION
    UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT
    POGUE
    REAVIS
    JONES
    COUNSEL
    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    DISMISS
    DIGNITY PARTNERS
    PLAINTIFFS
    CALIFORNIA
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    ATTORNEYS
    ROTTER
    COURTROOM
    REFORM ACT
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    PURSUANT
    LEGGE
    CHARLES
    JUDGE
    JOHN
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    SUITE
    PALMER
    GERALD
    DISKETTE
    AUTHORITIES
    
       Gerald W. Palmer (State Bar No. 58968)
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       555 West Fifth Street
       Suite 4600
       Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025
       Telephone: 213/489-3939
    
       David L. Carden
       Robert C. Micheletto
       JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
       77 West Wacker Drive
       Suite 3500
       Chicago, IL 60601-1692
       Telephone: 312/782-3939
    
       Attorneys for Defendants
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
       HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA
       and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated,
    
                             Plaintiffs,
    
       v.
    
       DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
    
                             Defendants.
    
    
    
       ____________________________________
    
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
       )
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Gerald W. Palmer
  • JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
  • Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • HOWARD HERTZBERG, JOHN DeROSA and JEFFREY FEINMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
  • DIGNITY PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
  • Judge Charles A. Legge
  • DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
  • RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE 1995 REFORM ACT
  • Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 10
  • TO: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECO