Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

i { Case 1 :05—cv—00455-SLR Document 4-2 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In Re: ) Chapter ll
) Case No. 03-10945 (MFW)
Fleming Companies, Inc., et al., )
) (Jointly Administered)
Debtors )
)
PCT, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Adversary Proceeding No. 05-77317 (PBL)
)
v. )
)
WD-40 Company, )
) Re: Docket Nos. 10, ll and 27
Defendant. )
AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
OF CORE/NON-CORE STATUS [Docket No. 10] AND MOTION TO
WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE |D0cket N0. ll|
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies as follows:
1. On April 22, 2005, the above—referenced defendant (the "Defendant") filed the (i)
Motion for Determination of Core/Non-Core Status and the (ii) Motion to Withdraw the Reference
[Docket No. l l] (collectively, the "Motions"). Plaintiff s counsel had advised that it intended to file
an opposition to the Motions.
2. On May l7, 2005, the parties entered into the Amended Stipulated Briefing Schedule
whereby plaintiff (the "Plaintift") was required to submit its answering brief if any, to the Motions
on or before June 8, 2005, and Defendant’s reply brief was required to be filed on or before June 22,
2005. The Amended Stipulated Briefing Schedule was filed with the Court on June 6, 2005. In
and around that time, the parties were negotiating another extension of the time to respond to the
Motions. To that end, the Plaintiff had prepared a third stipulation on the briefing schedule.
Defendant was agreeable to the proposed dates. However, on June 8, 2005, while in the process of
10004014.WPD

A I Case 1:05-cv-00455-SLR Document 4-2 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 2 of 3
reviewing the proposed stipulation, the parties learned that the Court had approved the Amended
Stipulated Briefing Schedule noting that no further extensions would be granted [Docket No. 24].
Accordingly, although the parties, subject to approval ofthe Court, agreed on June 8, 2005, to a third
extension of the briefing schedule, the third stipulation was never consummated because of the
Court’s order indicating that no further extensions would be granted.
3. Because no written opposition had been filed up until the day before the reply brief
would have been due under the Amended Stipulated Briefing Schedule, Defendant filed a
Certification of Counsel on June 21, 2005, indicating that the matters were ripe for consideration
[Docket No. 27](the "Certification"). After the filing of the Certification, Plaintiffs counsel
contacted Defendant’s counsel to indicate that he felt that the Court was being misled by the
statement that the matter was ripe for consideration because the Plaintiff does oppose the Motions
and intends to file papers in opposition to the Motions. Defense counsel in no way intended to
mislead the Court. Accordingly, Defendant agreed to file this Amended Certification.
Dated: June 22, 2005 SMITH, KATZENS ; EIN & FURLOW LLP
Kathleen M. Miller( . .No. 2898)
Etta R. Wolfe(I.D. No. 4164)
800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor
P.O. Box 410
Wilmington, DE 19899 (Courier 19801)
Phone: (302) 652-8400
Fax: (302) 652-8405
E-mail: Kmi1ler@,skfdelaware.com
[email protected]
Attorneys for WD-40 Company
l00040l4.WPD

I Case 1:05-cv-00455-SLR Document 4-2 Filed 07/08/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of June, 2005, a copy of the foregoing WD-
40 Company’s AMEDNED Certyication 0f Counsel re: Determination of CoreUVon-
Core Status and Motion to Withdraw the Reference was served on the following parties
by facsimile:
F. Wade Ackerman
Kirkland & Ellis
777 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 680-8500
David Fournier
Pepper Hamilton LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 421-8390
- Etta R. Wolfe (ID No. @64)
{10004022.Doc}