Twardy, et al v. Priceline.com, Inc, et al

MOTION for Extension of Time until 12/24/04 to answer 36 Consolidated Amended Complaint

D. Conn.October 19, 2004

STAM1-766739-1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In Re: Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- This document relates to: All Pending Actions : : : : : Master File No. 3:00cv1884 (DJS) October 18, 2004 CONSENTED TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Civil Rules for the District of Connecticut, defendants Priceline.com Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman, N.J. Nichols and Jay S. Walker, hereby move for an extension of time of sixty (60) days from October 25, 2004 until and including December 24, 2004 to answer the Consolidated Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). In the event that plaintiffs amend the Complaint further, the parties anticipate agreeing to a schedule for the defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond to that pleading, should there be one. In support of their motion, defendants state as follows: 1. This is the first such request for an extension of time by the defendants. Defendants have contacted counsel for plaintiffs, Erin G. Comite of Scott & Scott, and she has consented to the requested extension of time. 2. This consolidated securities action involves twenty-three (23) putative class action lawsuits currently pending in this District. Case 3:00-cv-01884-AVC Document 102 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 1 of 5 2 3. On October 7, 2004, the Court issued its Memorandum of Decision in which it granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In its Decision, the Court dismissed certain claims without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint, if desired, to address and attempt to cure the deficiencies cited in the Court’s Decision. Absent an extension of time, defendants’ answer to the Complaint would be due on October 25, 2004. 4. At this time, plaintiffs’ counsel has advised defendants that they have not yet decided whether to amend the Complaint. The requested extension will allow the defendants to defer an answer to the Complaint until after plaintiffs have made a decision regarding amendment. Should the plaintiffs choose to amend the Complaint, the parties anticipate agreeing to a schedule for the defendants to respond only to that amended pleading. 5. Should plaintiffs choose not to amend, more time is needed for the defendants to answer the current Complaint. Presently, the Complaint is almost 250 pages long. Defendants will be required to expend substantial time to prepare their answer to a pleading of such length. More time is needed for this reason as well. 6. Finally, defendants submit that in these circumstances, the interests of judicial economy and convenience to the parties are best served by the above-requested extension of time. There is also no prejudice to any party by the requested extension. Case 3:00-cv-01884-AVC Document 102 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 2 of 5 3 For all of these reasons, the defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the extension of time up to and including December 24, 2004. Respectfully submitted, THE DEFENDANTS PRICELINE.COM, INC., RICHARS S. BRADDOCK, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, N.J. NICHOLS and JAY S. WALKER By: /s/ Joseph L. Clasen Joseph L. Clasen (ct04090) ROBINSON & COLE LLP Financial Centre 695 East Main Street P.O. Box 10305 Stamford, Connecticut 06904-2305 Tel: (203) 462-7500 Fax: (203) 462-7599 E-mail: jclasen@rc.com Case 3:00-cv-01884-AVC Document 102 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 3 of 5 4 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Consented to Motion for Extension of Time was mailed this 18th day of October, 2004 via first class mail to the following counsel of record: Co-Lead Counsel David R. Scott, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Scott & Scott, LLC 108 Norwich Avenue P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Tel: 860-537-3818 Fax: 860-537-4432 Jules Brody, Esq. Aaron Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-687-7230 Fax: 212-490-2022 Dennis J. Johnson, Esq. Jacob B. Perkinson, Esq. Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson 1690 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Tel: 802-862-0030 Fax: 802-862-0060 Liaison Counsel Andrew M. Schatz, Esq. Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. Schatz & Nobel, PC 330 Main Street, 2nd Floor Hartford, CT 06106-1851 Tel: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 Case 3:00-cv-01884-AVC Document 102 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 4 of 5 5 Attorneys for Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP Eric W. Wiechmann, Esq. Peter W. Hull, Esq. McCarter & English 185 Asylum Street 36th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Tel: 860-275-6700 William R. Maguire, Esq. Carla A. Kerr, Esq. Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-837-6000 Fax: 212-422-4726 Attorneys for Defendant Jay S. Walker Martin Glenn, Esq. Dana C. MacGrath, Esq. O’Melveney & Myers LLP 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 Attorneys for priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and N.J. Nicholas, Jr. Evan R. Chesler, Esq. Daniel Slifkin, Esq. Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 Eight Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-474-1000 Fax: 212-474-3700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Twardy, Weingarten, Berdakina, Mayer, Mazzo, Fialkov, Licht, Bazag, Breirer, Farzam, Karas and Michols David A. Slossberg, Esq. Margaret E. Haering, Esq. Hurwitz & Sagarin, LLC 147 N. Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Tel: 203-877-8000 Fax: 203-878-9800 /s/ Joseph L. Clasen Joseph L. Clasen Case 3:00-cv-01884-AVC Document 102 Filed 10/19/2004 Page 5 of 5