Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00831-SLR Document 102 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT fb GODDESS, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 1401, 919 MARKET STREET
P. O. BOX 1070
JOSEPH A. ROSENTHAL WILMINGTON, DELAWARE ,989E,_lO,O TELEPHONE (302) 656-4453
NORMAN M. MONHAIT FACSIMILE (302) 658-7567
JEFFREY s. c,ODDEss
CARMELLA R REENER
EDWARD D. ROSENT1-{AL
JESSICA ZELDIN August 29, 2007
BY HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: In Re Veritas Software Corp. Securities Litigation
D. Del., Civil Action No. 04-831 (SLR)
Dear Judge Robinson:
With this letter, I am filing the parties’ Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of
this action against defendant John Brigden, without prejudice. On behalf of the parties, I
respectfully submit that, even though this litigation has been certified as a class action, no
notice or hearing is required for the Court to approve the dismissal.
First, the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(l)(A) is at least
ambiguous as to whether or not Court approval is even required for the dismissal of an
individual defendant from a class action. A more reasonable reading of the word "claims"
in that subsection is that it contemplates the entirety ofthe action rather than claims asserted
against an individual defendant. Counsel have not been able to find any decisions on this
point. The Court, however, need not make the first effort at interpretation.
Rule 23 subsections (e)(l)(B) and (C) require notice and a hearing as to a
dismissal that would "bind" class members. There is no binding effect on the class ofthe
dismissal proposed here because it is expressly without prejudice and the Stipulation contains
a tolling provision such that claims could be reasserted against Mr. Brigden if further fact
development warrants such an action.

Case 1 :04-cv—00831-SLR Document 102 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
August 29, 2007
Page 2
In addition, to the extent the pa1ties’ compliance with Rule 23(e)(2) is
necessary, I represent on behalf of the parties that the Stipulation reflects the entirety of the
agreement among them conceming the proposed dismissal. Specifically, neither Mr. Bri gden
nor anyone acting on his behalf is providing any consideration to plaintiffs or their counsel
in connection with the proposed dismissal.
Counsel are available should Your Honor have any questions conceming this
matter.
Respectfully,
ree ... s f - J - —* . ii. /4
‘‘.
·._- - - -_;g» € . -- »·- 2,.- ·-·‘ z 5* _
Norman M. Monhait (#1040)
NMM:mst
Enclosure
cc: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey M. Norton, Esquire
Andrew M. Schatz, Esquire David J. Goldsmith, Esquire
Clerk, U.S. District Court Ira Schochet, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00831-SLR

Document 102

Filed 08/29/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00831-SLR

Document 102

Filed 08/29/2007

Page 2 of 2