Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 1 of 14

Transcription

1 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES ) CASE NO.: 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA ) PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs move this Court for an order for modifying the page limitation of plaintiffs memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the page limitation of 30 pages be extended to 45 pages pursuant to N.D. Ohio Local Rule 7.1(g). The purpose of this Motion is not to cause delay and no prejudice will be caused by the requested extension. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in the attached Brief in Support. Edward W. Cochran Cochran & Cochran 2872 Broxton Road Shaker Heights, OH 44120` Liason Counsel Christopher Lovell Peggy Wedgworth Lovell & Stewart 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY Lead Counsel

2 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 2 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES ) CASE NO.: 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA ) PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs move this Court for an order for modifying the page limitation of plaintiffs memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the page limitation of 30 pages be extended to 45 pages pursuant to N.D. Ohio Local Rule 7.1(g). The purpose of this Motion is not to cause delay and no prejudice will be caused by the requested extension. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in the attached Brief in Support. Edward W. Cochran Cochran & Cochran 2872 Broxton Road Shaker Heights, OH 44120` Liason Counsel Christopher Lovell

3 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 3 of 14 Peggy Wedgworth Lovell & Stewart 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY Lead Counsel

4 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 4 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES ) CASE NO. 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the plaintiffs motion for modification of page limitation for plaintiffs memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Plaintiffs respectfully request a page extension from 30 pages to 45 pages in order to fully brief the issues presented to the Court in this case. A motion to extend the page limitation can be granted by a judicial officer. N.D.Ohio, L.R. 7.1(g); Cf. Stein v. Kent State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 994 F. Supp. 898, 905 (N.D. Ohio 1998)(Judge O'Malley granted defendants permission to extend to 33 pages their brief in support of summary judgment). This case is most appropriate for such page extension, and such additional 15 pages is necessary in this case for two reasons. First, in order to specifically address the many issues defendants raise in their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs require additional pages to fully brief all issues. For example, the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc has recently issued an opinion, Helwig v. Barnes, 251 F.3d 540 (6 th Cir. 2001)(en banc), which speaks to several key issues in this case. In order to appropriately address all the concerns in the Helwig opinion, plaintiffs will demonstrate in the brief in opposition to the defendants motion to dismiss that plaintiffs have appropriately set forth all

5 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 5 of 14 claims as to misrepresentations and omissions leading to violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of Such demonstration necessitates the additional 15 pages in briefing in order to fully set forth plaintiffs particularization of all facts in their consolidated complaint as well as address all relevant case law surrounding such issues. Second, in this class action covering a time period of almost two years, plaintiffs allege in their complaint that defendants made no less than eight misrepresentations and omissions. Each misrepresentation and omission should be fully addressed in plaintiffs brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. In order to adequately brief such misrepresentations and omissions, and the parties who made, benefitted and/or caused such misrepresentations and omissions, an additional 15 pages is needed. Plaintiffs are informed that defendants will not oppose the motion. Dated: January 10, 2002 _/s/ Edward Cochran Edward W. Cochran # Cochran & Cochran 2872 Broxton Road Shaker Heights, OH (216) Liason Counsel Christopher Lovell Peggy Wedgworth Lovell & Stewart, LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY (212)

6 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 6 of 14 Lead Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6

7 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 7 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES : CASE NO. 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION : : JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT The plaintiffs Motion For Modification of Page Limitation for plaintiffs memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint having come before the Court pursuant to Ohio Fed. Dist. Ct. (N.D.), Civ. LR 7.1(g) and good cause for the extension of such page limitation having been found, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs may modify their page limitation from 30 pages not to exceed 45 pages in their memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint which is to be filed on January 14, Dated: JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7

8 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 8 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES : CASE NO. 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION : : JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE IMMATERIAL AND IMPERTINENT STATEMENTS FROM CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT On or about November 20, 2001 defendants filed with this Court a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a separate Motion to Strike Immaterial and Impertinent Statements from the Consolidated Complaint. Pursuant to this Court s order dated November 7, 2001, plaintiffs response to the Motion to Dismiss is due on January 4,

9 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 9 of 14 The parties jointly move this Court for an order extending (i) the due date for plaintiffs to respond to the Motion to Strike from December 7, 2001, as mandated by, to January 4, 2002; and (ii) the due date for defendants to reply in support of their Motion to Strike to February 4, Such dates coincide with the due date for plaintiffs response and defendants reply to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs do not seek any additional extension of time over the holidays in responding to defendants Motion to Dismiss, but seek an extension of time only to respond to the Motion to Strike. This scheduling change does not affect any dates set forth in this Court s November 7, 2001 scheduling order. Respectfully submitted, Edward W. Cochran Daniel P. Mascaro ( ) Cochran & Cochran Hilary W. Rule ( ) 2872 Broxton Road Rebecca C. Lutzko ( ) Shaker Heights, OH Baker & Hostetler LLP (216) National City Center Christopher Lovell (CL 2595) 1900 East 9 th Street Peggy Wedgworth (PW 7371) Cleveland, Ohio LOVELL & STEWART, LLP (216) Fifth Avenue New York, New York (212) David H. Kistenbroker Leah J. Domitrovic Lead Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pamela G. Smith Theresa L. Davis Katten Muchin Zavis 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL

10 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 10 of 14 (312) Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Peggy J. Wedgworth, do certify that on the 10th day of January, 2002 I caused true and correct copies of to be served by upon the following: Daniel P. Mascaro, Esq. Baker & Hostetler, LLP 3200 National City Center 1900 East 9 th St. Cleveland, Ohio David H. Kistenbroker, Esq. Pamela G. Smith Theresa L. Davis Katten Muchin Zavis 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois Dated: January 10, 2002 /s/ Peggy Wedgworth PEGGY J. WEDGWORTH, ESQ. LOVELL & STEWART, LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY

11 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 11 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES : CASE NO. 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION : : JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITATION FOR PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT The plaintiffs Motion For Modification of Page Limitation for plaintiffs memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint having come before the Court pursuant to Ohio Fed. Dist. Ct. (N.D.), Civ. LR 7.1(g) and good cause for the extension of such page limitation having been found, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs may modify their page limitation from 30 pages not to exceed 45 pages in their memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint which is to be filed on January 14, Dated: JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11

12 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 12 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IN RE CENTURY BUSINESS SERVICES : CASE NO. 1:99CV2200 SECURITIES LITIGATION : : JUDGE PAUL R. MATIA JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE IMMATERIAL AND IMPERTINENT STATEMENTS FROM CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT On or about November 20, 2001 defendants filed with this Court a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a separate Motion to Strike Immaterial and Impertinent Statements from the Consolidated Complaint. Pursuant to this Court s order dated November 7, 2001, plaintiffs response to the Motion to Dismiss is due on January 4, The parties jointly move this Court for an order extending (i) the due date for plaintiffs to respond to the Motion to Strike from December 7, 2001, as mandated by, to January 4, 2002; and (ii) the due date for defendants to reply in support of their Motion to Strike to February 4, Such dates coincide with the due date for plaintiffs response and 12

13 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 13 of 14 defendants reply to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs do not seek any additional extension of time over the holidays in responding to defendants Motion to Dismiss, but seek an extension of time only to respond to the Motion to Strike. This scheduling change does not affect any dates set forth in this Court s November 7, 2001 scheduling order. Respectfully submitted, Edward W. Cochran Daniel P. Mascaro ( ) Cochran & Cochran Hilary W. Rule ( ) 2872 Broxton Road Rebecca C. Lutzko ( ) Shaker Heights, OH Baker & Hostetler LLP (216) National City Center Christopher Lovell (CL 2595) 1900 East 9 th Street Peggy Wedgworth (PW 7371) Cleveland, Ohio LOVELL & STEWART, LLP (216) Fifth Avenue New York, New York (212) David H. Kistenbroker Leah J. Domitrovic Lead Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pamela G. Smith Theresa L. Davis Katten Muchin Zavis 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL (312) Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Peggy J. Wedgworth, do certify that on the 10th day of January, 2002 I caused true and correct copies of to be served by upon the following: 13

14 Case 1:99-cv PRM Document 74 Filed 01/10/2002 Page 14 of 14 Daniel P. Mascaro, Esq. Baker & Hostetler, LLP 3200 National City Center 1900 East 9 th St. Cleveland, Ohio David H. Kistenbroker, Esq. Pamela G. Smith Theresa L. Davis Katten Muchin Zavis 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois Dated: January 10, /s/ Peggy Wedgworth PEGGY J. WEDGWORTH, ESQ. LOVELL & STEWART, LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY