Chimicles E5 T1l
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 1055
Wilmington DE 19899
Telephone: [502} 656.2500
Telecopier: {302] 656.9055
June 15’ 2 E—1nail: MHll@ClHIUlCl€S.COH1
Nicholas E. Chiniicles
Pamela S. Tikellis "° I _ _
James p__ Malone, JL E-Filing and Hand Delivery
Micliael D Gottsch
§°b"“£ idilcrr JL li Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
teven . ciwartz . .
M. Kmmnc Mmmm J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
Candice L.H. Hegedus Klng Street
joseph G. Sauder Rggm
Kimberly M. Donaldson Lockbox
Daniel B. Scott . .
Hmm EE Bmkcy Wilmington, DE 1980l
Robert R. Davis "‘
Kimberly M- Litman RE: Hyland v. J .P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
T 11¤1 my N Mathews __ civn case N0. 1:06-cv-00224-JJF
A. Zachary Naylor ·*·
Timothy P Briggs
Daniel Brown * Dear .Jl.lCl.g€ FBIHHIIZ
Benjamin E johns
We write on behalf Dr. Stephen Blau, the Court-appointed Lead
o r c 0 u N s E 1
Moriis M. Shuster _ _ _ _
Denise Davis schwmzmn Plaintiff in Blau v. Harrison, et al., 04 C 6592, currently pending before
Anthony Allen Geyelin
Judge William J. Hibbler in the Northern District of Illinois, who is a
:1:/IND/‘II€)6` admitted to
mm In Ddnwm movant in the above—captioned action. On April 18, 2006, Dr. Blau filed a
motion to consolidate this action with a related action captioned Hyland v.
‘ Harrison, etal., Civil Case No. 1:05-cv-00162-JJF (the "05-l62 Actionâ€),
for the purpose of enforcing this Court’s order staying the 05-162 Action
pending the outcome of Dr. Blau’s earlier-tiled action in the Illinois
District Court. (D.I. 7). Dr. Blau’s motion to consolidate is subjuclice.
We write in connection with plaintiff Samuel I. Hyland’s motion
for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which was filed with
HAv1z1u=oan ormcr
One Haverford Centre
561 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: {610} 642.8500
Telecopier: {610} 649.5655
Case 1:06—cv-I0I%§§;LéEJigi|3OScglpeolrgleiwgni il Filed 06/15/2006 Page 2 of 4
June 15, 2006
Page 2 of 4
the Court on June 12, 2006. (D.I. 14). For the reasons set forth below, -
we submit that the Court should not require a formal response to Mr.
Hyland’s motion at this time.
The Court’s ruling on Dr. Blau’s motion to consolidate this action
with the stayed 05-162 Action may moot Mr. Hyland’s lead plaintiff
motion. On April 6, 2006, Mr. Hyland filed this action which he admits is
related to the 05-162 Action. (D.I. 2). On the same day, he also filed a
motion before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("Panel") to
consolidate this action with the stayed 05-162 Action and Dr. Blau’s
Illinois action, which is cuirently in discovery, for coordinated pre—trial
proceedings in this District. (D.I. 4). Dr. Blau tiled his motion to
consolidate in this action because he believes Mr. Hyland is improperly
attempting to evade this Court’s stay order in the 05-162 Action and to
oust the Illinois District Court of jurisdiction over Dr. Blau’s action. If
this Court grants Dr. Blau’s motion and stays this action, then the Court
p will not resolve the lead plaintiff motion until after the stay is lifted, if at
all.
Similarly, a ruling by the Panel on Mr. Hyland’s motion for
centralization may also moot his lead plaintiff motion. That motion has
been fully briefed and is awaiting disposition by the Panel. Whether or
Case 1:06-cv-Iggggéidé|§OSC§pp·L1It11&1e1p3E1j Filed 06/15/2006 Page 3 of 4
Jtme 15, 2006
Page 3 of 4
not the Panel decides to consolidate the actions for pre-trial purposes, the
issue of whether this action should be consolidated with the 05-162 Action
for all ptuposes and stayed in favor of Dr. Blau’s action will need to be
resolved. These questions are preliminary to the question of whether Mr.
Hyland and his cotuisel should be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel
in this action.
_ Moreover, on April 24, 2006, this Court granted defendant’s
motion to extend the time to answer or move with respect to Mr. Hyland’s
complaint until 30 days after the Panel rules on Mr. Hyland’s motion for
coordinated proceedings. (Minute entry so ordering D.l. 6). Dr. Blau
submits that it would be inefficient for briefing to go forward on Mr.
Hyland’s lead plaintiff motion when Dr. Blau’s motion has been fully
briefed and defendant’s time to respond to the complaint is pegged to the
resolution of the MDL motion.
Finally, Mr. Hyland’s motion is one more example of his tactic of
filing successive motions when a decision on an earlier motion could
dispose of issues raised by the successive motions. (See 05-162, D.I. 85).
That is precisely the situation here, where Dr. Blau’s motion to
consolidate and/or Mr. I-Iyland’s MDL motion, both of which are sub
Case 1 :06—cv-0fg)%%4égIéFJOSC%€qup1&eQg1Jqt Filed 06/15/2006 Page 4 of 4
June 15, 2006 ’
Page 4 of 4
judice, must be resolved before the appointment of lead plaintiff in this
action need be addressed.
Under these circumstances, we respectfully submit that Dr. Blau
should not be required to submit a response to Mr. Hyland’s lead plaintiff
motion. If the Court determines that a fonnal response is necessary, we
stand ready to submit a brief on any schedule that the Court deems
appropriate.
Respec
Pam S. Tikellis (#2172)
cc: Clerk of Court (by e-filing)
Joseph N. Gielata, Esquire (by e-filing)
Michael Ray Robinson, Esquire (by e-filing)
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms