You're viewing Docket Item 47 from the case Jonah Ansell v. Daniel S. Laikin et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:411



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

CLASS ACTION

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT

Hon. Percy Anderson



Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: [email protected]


Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Class

Additional counsel listed on signature pages




)
JONAH ANSELL, individually and on
)
behalf of all others similarly situated,
)
)

)
Plaintiff,
)
)

vs.
)
DANIEL S. LAIKIN; TIMOTHY S.
)
)
DURHANM; PAUL SKJODT;
)
ROBERT LEVY; JAMES P. JIMIRRO;
)
)
DUNCAN MURRAY; JAMES TOLL;
)
LORRAINE EVANOFF; and
)
NATIONAL LAMPOON, INC.,
)
)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and this Court’s

Order Setting Scheduling Conference (“Rule 26(f) Order”), counsel for Plaintiffs
and the undersigned defendants (“Defendants”) have conferred and hereby jointly
submit this Rule 26(f) Report.

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

1



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:412



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant National Lampoon, Inc., is represented by Richardson & Patel

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel is The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Defendants Daniel S. Laikin ("Laikin") is represented by Boren, Osher &

I. ATTORNEYS OF RECORD


Luftman, LLP.

LLP.
Defendant Timothy S. Durham ("Durham"), Paul Skjodt ("Skjodt"), Robert

Levy ("Levy"), James P. Jimirro ("Jimirro"), Duncan Murray ("Murray"), James
Toll ("Toll"), and Lorraine Evanoff ("Evanoff") are represented by Ropers,
Majeski, Kohn & Bentley.


STATEMENT OF THE CASE
II.
Plaintiffs’ statement: This is a putative class action for alleged violations of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5
brought on behalf of all persons and entities, other than defendants, who purchased
securities of National Lampoon between March 1, 2008, and December 15, 2006,
inclusive. Defendant Laikin, National Lampoon's CEO, President, and one of its
directors, masterminded a scheme illegally to manipulate National Lampoon's
stock price to create the illusion of an active and liquid market in the National
Lampoon's shares. Defendant Laikin has pleaded guilty to criminal charges for his
participation in the scheme and is currently in prison. The other individual
defendants were participants in the scheme, or had a duty to investigate and did
not, and that National Lampoon is liable under principles of respondeat superior.
The purpose of the scheme was to avoid removal from the American Stock
Exchange, and to acquire other companies. On this basis, Plaintiffs pursue claims
against all the defendants in this action for their alleged participation in the
scheme. Plaintiffs also assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

2



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:413



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

against the Individual Defendants as controlling persons. If Plaintiffs prevail on
their claims, Plaintiffs believe that provable damages may include damages
suffered by putative class members in addition to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and
costs and expenses. Plaintiffs believe that the total recoverable damages is in the
millions of dollars.

Defendants Durham, Skjodt, Levy, Jimirro, Murray, Toll, and Evanoff’s

statement (“the Director Defendants”): The Director Defendants deny any
knowledge of or reason to know of the alleged wrongdoing, deny any knowledge
of or reason to know of the alleged false statements, and deny that they are
“controlling persons” under Section 20(a). Plaintiffs allege that the Director
Defendants had knowledge and are controlling persons, but have no facts to back
up those allegations.

Defendant National Lampoon, Inc.'s (“National Lampoon) statement:

National Lampoon denies any knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing, denies that
Laikin acted within the scope of his employment, and denies that Laikin acted to
advance the interests of National Lampoon.

Defendant Daniel Laikin's statement: Defendant Dan Laikin denies that any

of the conduct alleged by Plaintiff on behalf of the class was the proximate cause
of Plaintiff's damages, if any, which Defendant expressly denies.


III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES

illegal scheme to manipulate the price of National Lampoon's common stock.

1. Whether defendants Laikin, Durham, and Evanoff participated in an

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

3



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:414



2. Whether the Complaint is a "puzzle-style" pleading.
3. Whether defendants Skjodt, Levy, Jimirro, Murray, Toll, and Evanoff
had actual knowledge of the scheme, or were reckless in not knowing of the
scheme, creating for them a duty to investigate the scheme.

caused a decline in the price of National Lampoon's stock.

Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972).

6. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of reliance under

5. Whether the revelation of the alleged misstatements and omissions



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8. Whether the putative class and Lead Plaintiff satisfy the requirements

9. Whether Laikin acted within the scope of his employment.
10. Whether Laikin acted to advance the interests of National Lampoon.
11. The amount of damages, if any, suffered by the putative class as a

7. Whether defendants Laikin, Durham, Evanoff, Skjodt, Levy, Jimirro,
Murray, and Toll are “controlling persons” within the meaning of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and whether such defendants acted in good faith.

for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.



result of the alleged misstatements and omissions.

12. The proportionate liability, if any, of each defendant.
IV. AMENDING THE PLEADINGS


Plaintiffs may seek to amend the Complaint should the Court grant the
motion to dismiss filed by defendant Laikin. Additionally, Plaintiffs may seek to
amend the pleadings to add additional defendants following initial document
discovery. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court set the date for motions to
join parties or for leave to amend to add additional parties as no later than 120 days
from the commencement of discovery.
V. ANTICIPATED MOTIONS

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

4



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:415



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. Motion to Dismiss: Defendant Laikin has filed a motion to dismiss,


and the motion will be heard on August 2, 2011. (Dkt. #35, 42).

or before January 31, 2012.

2.

Class Certification: Plaintiffs intend to move for class certification on

3.

Plaintiffs and Defendants have not engaged in settlement discussions to

Summary Judgment: Plaintiffs and Defendants anticipate filing
separate motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication after the
expert discovery cut-off date. The Director Defendants and National Lampoon
may file a motion for summary judgment much earlier.
VI. SETTLEMENT

date. To the extent that Plaintiffs and Defendants are unable to resolve this
litigation through negotiations by counsel, Plaintiffs and Defendants select
settlement procedure no. 3 set forth in local rule 16-15.4 (i.e., non-judicial dispute
resolution). Plaintiffs and Defendants have not yet agreed on a neutral mediator to
conduct the proceeding.
VII. PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN



30, 2011.








B. Discovery Schedule And Limits
1.
Discovery begins:
Plaintiffs’ class certification motion:
Opposition to class certification:
Reply brief on class certification:
Class certification hearing:

September 15, 2011
January 31, 2012
March 5, 2011
March 20, 2012
April 2, 2012


A.
Plaintiffs propose that initial disclosures should be exchanged by September

Initial Disclosures

Plaintiffs propose the following schedule:













JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

5



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:416



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
























August 31, 2012
October 26, 2012
November 16, 2012
November 30, 2012
January 14, 2013
April 22, 2013
May 27, 2013
June 11, 2013

Fact discovery cut off:

Plaintiffs’ expert report:
Discovery motion filing deadline:
Defendants’ expert report(s)
Expert discovery cut off:
Dispositive motion hearing:
Pretrial conference:

Trial:












Plaintiffs and Defendants reserve the right to seek from each other or the

Court additional adjournments or extensions of the applicable foregoing deadlines.


electronically stored information.


submission to the Court shortly.


limitations contained in the Rules.
VIII. TRIAL

Electronic Discovery

C.
Plaintiffs and Defendants will discuss the format of retrieving any

E. Changes in Discovery Limitations
Plaintiffs and Defendants do not anticipate modifications to the discovery

D. Privilege Issues
Plaintiffs and Defendants will propose a joint protective order for

Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial. Plaintiffs estimate length of trial for
both parties will be 6 days, excluding jury selection, opening statements and closing
arguments.

Defendants do not believe that a 6 day trial is feasible, and believe that a

longer trial will likely be necessary.

JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

6



Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:417



Dated:









Respectfully submitted,


July 25, 2011



THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

__/s Laurence Rosen__________________
Laurence M. Rosen (SBN # 219683)
333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: [email protected]




THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

















Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Class








RICHARDSON & PATEL LLP

By: /s/ Addison K. Adams
ADDISON K. ADAMS
Attorneys for Defendant
National Lampoon, Inc.

ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN &
BENTLEY

By: /S/ Timothy L. Skelton
TODD A. ROBERTS
TIMOTHY L. SKELTON
Attorneys for Defendants
Timothy S. Durham, Paul Skjodt,
Robert Levy, James P. Jimirro,
Duncan Murray, James Toll, and
Lorraine Evanoff






JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

7

















































Dated: July 25, 2011

































Dated: July 25, 2011


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 47 Filed 07/26/11 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:418



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28







Dated: July 26, 2011

































LLP






BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN,

By: /s/ Jeremy J. Osher
Jeremy J. Osher
Attorneys for Defendant Daniel S.
Laikin





JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT-- Case No.: 10-CV-9292-PA(AGRx)

8