Smith v. Sperling et al
| Darlene Smith |
| William J Pepicello, Unknown Parties, Brian L Swartz, Brian Mueller, P Robert Moya, Robert W Wrubel, Manuel F Rivelo, George Zimmer, Joseph L D'Amico, Gregory J Iverson, Charles B Edelstein, Gregory W Cappelli, Terri C Bishop, Dino J Deconcini, Samuel A DiPiazza, Jr., Stephen J Giusto, Roy A Herberger, Jr., Ann Kirschner, K Sue Redman, Apollo Group Incorporated, James R Reis, John G Sperling and Peter V Sperling |
| 2:2011cv00722 |
| April 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Paul G Rosenblatt |
| Stockholders Suits |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
88
ORDER that the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 71 ) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nominal Defendant Apollo Group, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Derivative Complaint (Doc. 74 ) is granted. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended Complaint within thirty days, the Clerk of the Court, must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal in this action. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/25/2012. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER that Plaintiff shall file a supplement to her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Derivative Complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order. Such supplement shall solely address the standing issue discussed herein and shall not exceed 5 pages. Nominal Defendant Apollo Group, Inc. may file a Response to the Supplement within 5 days of the filing of such supplement. Such Response shall not exceed 5 pages. No reply will be allowed. If Plaintiff fails to file a supplement within 10 days of the date of this Order, the Motions to Dismiss pending before this Court will be granted without further warning. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/16/2012. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER that Nominal Defendant Apollo Group, Inc.'s Motion to Stay (Doc. 49 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Apollo's request to stay Apollo III until Apollo II is resolved is denied without prejudice. Apollo's reques t to stay Apollo III pending the Special Committee's Investigation is denied without prejudice. Apollo's request to stay Apollo III until motions to dismiss are resolved is granted. Pursuant to this Court's Order of September 28, 2011 (Doc. 65 ), Defendants shall file an answer or any other responsive motion to the Complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order. Judge Rosenblatt's Order Setting Scheduling Conference of April 20, 2011 (Doc. 6) is vacated, to be reissued by this Court. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 53 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/10/2012. (KMG)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Transfer (Doc. 82 in CV 10-1735- PHX-JAT; Doc. 15 in CV 11-722-PHX-PGR) is granted; all future filings relating to CV 11-722 shall be filed in CV 11-722-PHX-JAT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this Order in CV 10-1735-PHX-JAT. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 09/14/11. (ESL)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER granting 17 47 Stipulations re Briefing Schedule: Defendants' motion to stay due 7/28/2011;Plaintiff's opposition due 9/13/2011; Defendants' reply due 10/13/2011. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 7/26/2011. ( see order details)(TCA)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
