STIPULATION TO STAY AND [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, the Port Authority of Allegheny County Retirement and Disability Allowance Plan for Employees Represented by Local 85 of the Amalgamated Transit Union ("Plaintiff" or "ATU 85"), and defendants L. Stephen Smith, W. Roger Haughton, David H. Katkov, Donald P. Lofe, Jr., Mariann Byerwalter, Dr. James C. Castle, Carmine Guerro, Wayne E. Heiden, Louis G. Lower, II, Raymond L. Ocampo, Jr., John D. Roach, Dr. Kenneth T. Rosen, Steven L. Scheid, Jose H. Villarreal, Mary Lee Widener, and Ronald H. Zech (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and nominal defendant, The PMI Group, Inc., ("PMI" or the "Company") hereby submit the following Stipulation and [Proposed] Case Management Order ("Order"):
1. On April 18, 2008, Plaintiff ATU 85 filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of PMI against certain of its officers and directors seeking to remedy Defendants' alleged violations of federal law, including breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment (the "Federal Derivative Action").
2. On April 17, 2008, a shareholder derivative action based on similar factual allegations and asserting substantially similar claims was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, Jorge Torres v. L. Stephen Smith, et al., Case No. C08-01068 (the "State Derivative Action").
3. On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff ATU 85 filed an Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint ("Amended Complaint") in the Federal Derivative Action.
4. On May 12, 2010, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties to this action and the State Derivative Action, this Court temporarily stayed this action so that the parties could engage in mediation with (Ret.) Judge Layn Phillips.
5. Thereafter, the parties in the Federal Derivative Action and the State Derivative Actions (collectively "Actions") engaged in all day long mediation sessions with (Ret.) Judge Layn Phillips on June 10, 2010 and July 13, 2010 and conducted numerous follow-up telephonic conferences.
6. After unsuccessful efforts to settle the Actions via mediation, the parties renewed litigation. To that end, Defendants filed and served their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 1, 2010, setting a hearing date for April 8, 2011. The deadline for Plaintiff to file any opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for December 16, 2010.
7. Subsequent to the filing of Defendant's motion to dismiss, the parties to the Federal Derivative Action and the State Derivative Action participated in a further telephonic mediation with additional assistance from Judge Phillips, culminating on November 23, 2010 in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding by duly authorized Counsel.
8. The parties are now preparing for execution a formal Stipulation of Settlement which will be followed by the preparation and filing of a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and Notice.
9. It is anticipated that the Stipulation of Settlement will be completed and executed early in the first quarter of 2011 and that the Plaintiffs shall be in a position to move for preliminary approval of the settlement and Notice within the first quarter 2011.
10. In light of the Memorandum of Understanding, Defendants have agreed to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice to re-filing in the event that the settlement is not approved, and that the hearing date on and deadline for filing Plaintiff's opposition to the motion should be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby stipulate and agree, and respectfully request that the Court enter an order as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is withdrawn, without prejudice to re-filing in the event that the settlement is not approved, and the April 8, 2011 date for hearing on the motion and the December 16, 2010 deadline for any opposition to the motion are vacated;
2. Plaintiff shall file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of Notice no later than 14 days from the execution by the parties of a Stipulation for Settlement;
3. The parties shall submit a stipulated proposed schedule with respect to all further settlement related procedures, including the filing deadline for the motion for final approval and a suggested briefing schedule with respect thereto, with the motion for preliminary approval papers filed with the Court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.