Barrett v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. et alMOTION for Leave to FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING DEFENDANTS EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTD. Colo.November 29, 2017IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-01579-WJM-NYW WILLIAM M. BARRETT, Individually and as the representative of a class consisting of the participants and beneficiaries of the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(k) and Matching Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.; et al., Defendants. BARRETT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff William Barrett, individually and as representative of participants and beneficiaries of the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(K) and Matching Plan (the “Plan”), through counsel, moves the Court pursuant to WJM Revised Practice Standards, III.K for leave to file the attached supplemental authority regarding Defendants’ Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”). As grounds, Barrett states: 1. On November 27, 2017, an order was entered in Leber et al v. The Citigroup 401(k) Plan Investment Committee et al, 07-CV-9329 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017), which addresses the issue of whether plaintiffs had standing to assert claims even though they did not invest in each of the funds at issue. A copy of the opinion is attached hereto. 2. The case relates to Defendants’ argument that Barrett lacks standing to claim Defendants acted imprudently in retaining the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund. The issue is addressed on pages 4-6 of the Motion and pages 5-7 of Barrett’s Response to Early Partial Case 1:17-cv-01579-WJM-NYW Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3 2 Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Standing, And Motion Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(D) to Deny Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Defer Ruling Regarding Whether Retaining the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund as a Plan Investment Option was Imprudent (“Response”). 3. The case was decided seven days after Barrett filed his Response on November 20, 2017, so Barrett could not have known of this case when he filed his Response. 4. Barrett requests the Court grant him leave to file the supplemental authority attached. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 Certification Plaintiff’s Counsel has conferred with Defendants’ Counsel regarding this Motion. Defendants do not oppose the relief requested. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of November, 2017. s/ Paul R. Wood Paul R. Wood Keith R. Scranton FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 E. Evans Ave. Aurora, CO 80014 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:17-cv-01579-WJM-NYW Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 29th day of November, 2017, I electronically filed and served the foregoing BARRETT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record: Catalina J. Vergara O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 cvergara@omm.com □ by First-Class U.S. Mail □ by e-mail □ by Share File □ by Overnight Mail ■ by CM/ECF system Shannon Barrett O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006-4061 sbarrett@omm.com □ by First-Class U.S. Mail □ by e-mail □ by Share File □ by Overnight Mail ■ by CM/ECF system /s/ Colette L. Foote Colette L. Foote Case 1:17-cv-01579-WJM-NYW Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
