Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 41

Filed 12/15/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOEL MENKES, Individually and on Behalf of ) All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) STOLT-NIELSEN S.A., JACOB STOLT) NIELSEN, NIELS G. STOLT-NIELSEN, ) SAMUEL COOPERMAN, and REGINALD ) J.R. LEE, ) ) Defendant(s). ) ______________________________________ )

Case No. 3:03CV409 (DJS)

December 14, 2004

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER FED. R. EVID. 201

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 41

Filed 12/15/2004

Page 2 of 4

NOW COME Lead Plaintiffs, Irene Rucker and Gustav Rucker, and request that this Court take judicial notice as follows under Fed. R. Evid. 201: 1. On December 11, 2003, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Law in

Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint. [Docket #33] (cited as "Plts.' Br. at __"). That motion remains pending. 2. Stolt-Nielsen's ("Stolt") former General Counsel, Paul O'Brien ("O'Brien"), has sued

Stolt in Connecticut Superior Court for constructive discharge; O'Brien alleges that Stolt constructively discharged him because Stolt would not cease its unlawful conduct, i.e., anti-trust and embargo violations. (Complaint ¶¶ 59-61). 3. On or about September 21, 2004, a declaration was filed in O'Brien's civil case,

O'Brien v. Stolt-Nielsen, et al., Docket Number CV 02-01900515-S, judicial district of Stamford (Complex Litigation) (Taggart, J.). 4. According to an October 6, 2004 Wall Street Journal article, the declaration "provides

a detailed account of the scandal." 5. According to the declaration, Stolt officials met after O'Brien had warned the

company about its unlawful conduct. Stolt official Richard Wingfield assured worried executives that O'Brien could not reveal the scheme and that "it would be business as usual." 6. 7. A true and correct copy of the Wall Street Journal article is attached hereto. Judicial notice is proper under the First Circuit's opinion in Kowalski v. Gagne, 914

F.2d 299, 305-06 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[F]ederal courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts if those proceedings have relevance to the matter at hand.") (collecting cases). See also Leradi v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 230 F.3d 594, 598, n.2 (3rd Cir. 2000) (collecting cases) (courts may take judicial notice of newspaper articles); Onedia Indian Nat'l v. County of Oneida, 199 F.R.D. 61, 83 n. 10 (N.D.N.Y.2000) (taking judicial notice of newspaper articles) (citations omitted); Cerasani 1

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 41

Filed 12/15/2004

Page 3 of 4

v. Sony Corp., 991 F. Supp. 343, 354 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Schwenk v. Kavanaugh, 4 F. Supp. 2d 116, 118 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (same).

DATED: December 14, 2004

SCOTT + SCOTT, LLC ______________________________________ DAVID R. SCOTT (FEDERAL BAR NO. CT16080) ERIN GREEN COMITE (FEDERAL BAR NO. CT24886) 108 Norwich Avenue Post Office Box 192 Colchester, CT -6415 (860) 537-3818 (tel) (860) 537-4432 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] Liaison Counsel

LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 200 Broadhollow Road ­ Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 (631) 367-7100 (tel) (631) 367-1173 (fax) Lead Counsel

2

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 41

Filed 12/15/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of December 2004, I caused a true copy of the foregoing to be sent via U.S. mail to the following parties: Donna Nelson Heller Patrick J. McHugh FINN DIXON & HERLING One Landmark Square ­ Suite 1400 Stamford, CT 06901 Christopher M. Curran J. Mark Gidley Jaime Crowe Peter J. Carney WHITE & CASE 601 Thirteenth Street, NW ­ Suite 600 South Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for Defendants

____________________________________
G:\sadkins\REQ Judicial Notice v3.doc

1