Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

September 11, 2006

ROBERT ROSS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND DANIEL TAUBENFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND THE BOOTH FAMILY TRUST, BY CHARLES FEDERMAN, TRUSTEE, DERIVATIVELY : ON BEHALF OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL S. JEFFRIES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND STANLEY SVED, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND GORDON TAYLOE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND PO LEUNG CHEUNG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND KAREN E. GRAHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND ROBERT KEMP, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RUSSELL M. GERTMEIAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND ALFRED FREED, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL S. JEFFRIES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND JENNIFER CHU, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RUSSELL M. GERTMENIAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Sargus

ORDER

This order pertains only to the shareholder derivative actions. conference with the Court to discuss whether all proceedings should be held in abeyance pending the Court's ruling on the motion to stay the case while the Abercrombie & Fitch Special Litigation Committee considers whether to pursue the derivative claims.

potentially be wasteful of the Court's and the parties' resources to require defendants to file motions to dismiss (which is the defendants' intent) in response to the current complaint by September 8, 2006, or by some date shortly thereafter. The Court further concluded that it would not materially delay the resolution of the cases on their merits if such motions practice was deferred until after the Court makes its ruling on the motion to stay, which ruling should be made promptly after all briefs are filed. Therefore, the Court vacated the answer date and will establish a new date for responding to the complaint should the motion for stay be denied.

Terence P. Kemp United States Magistrate Judge

Counsel in these cases participated in a telephone

After hearing argument, the Court concluded that it would

20060911

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.