# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files # Bates number: EFTA00608057 # Title: Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 1 of 6 # Dataset: 9 # Pages: 6 # Images: 6 detected # Tags: epstein, doj, dataset-9, image-described # Source PDF: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00608057/download # Doc viewer: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00608057 # # Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF. # 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages. # Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b). #---------------------------------------------------------------------- === SUMMARY === Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., CIVIL NO. 2009-106 Plaintiff, v. THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendant The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. ("Bear Stearns" or "defendant"), hereby respectfully moves, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6( === EXTRACTED TEXT === Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., CIVIL NO. 2009-106 Plaintiff, v. THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendant The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. ("Bear Stearns" or "defendant"), hereby respectfully moves, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), for an enlargement of time within which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Verified Complaint ("Complaint") of plaintiff Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("plaintiff'), and in support thereof states: 1. Service of the Complaint was effected on November 30, 2009. Accordingly, defendant's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond expires on December 21, 2009. 2. The Complaint alleges that Bear Stearns made material misstatements regarding the value of its mortgage -related assets, the adequacy of its liquidity and EFTA00608057 Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 2 of 6 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Civil No. 2009-106 Page 2 capital reserves, and the quality of its risk management in order to induce plaintiff to retain its shares of Bear Steams stock. 3. On December 3, 2009, counsel for defendant filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") a Rule 7.5 Notice of Potential Tag-Along Action (the "Notice"), informing the MDL Panel that the instant action (the "Action") is related to the consolidated multidistrict litigation In re The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, 08 M.D.L. 1963 (S.D.N.Y.) (RWS) (the "MDL Action"), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet. A copy of the Notice was served on plaintiff's counsel. 4. In August 2008, the MDL Panel joined for consolidated or coordinated pretrial purposes fifteen actions (the "Related Actions") against Bear Stearns concerning "whether Bear Stearns and certain of its current and former officers and directors knowingly made material misstatements or omissions concerning the company's financial health that misled investors and caused investor losses when the company's stock price fell in March 2008." The MDL Panel also indicated in the MDL Panel Order that all pending and future related actions would be treated as potential tag-along actions and transferred to the EFTA00608058 Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 3 of 6 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Civil No. 2009-106 Page 3 Southern District of New York for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. 5. Since the MDL Panel's August 2008 Order, the MDL Panel has transferred all related actions filed against Bear Steams to the Southern District of New York and Judge Sweet. See, e.g., Wang v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., et at, No. 09 Civ. 1200 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2009); Rand v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., et at, No. 08 Civ. 8194 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2008). 6. The Complaint in this Action shares numerous questions of fact with the Related Actions. Namely, all of the actions center on allegations that Bear Stearns made material misstatements or omissions concerning its financial condition that misled plaintiffs and caused them losses when Bear Stearns' stock price dropped. 7. Given the overlapping factual issues, defendant anticipates that transfer of this Action by the MDL Panel is likely. 8. Accordingly, to promote judicial efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings when the Action is transferred, on December 9, 2009, the undersigned requested that plaintiff grant defendant an extension of time to answer, move, or EFTA00608059 Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 4 of 6 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Civil No. 2009-106 Page 4 otherwise respond to the Complaint until ten (10) days after the MDL Panel decides whether the Action should be transferred to the Southern District of New York. In the alternative, counsel for plaintiff was asked for an extension of 60 days. 9. On December 15, 2009, counsel for plaintiff stated that he was still discussing the request for an extension with his client. 10. On December 18, 2009, nine days after defendant's initial request for an extension, the undersigned received an email from counsel for plaintiff agreeing to extend defendant's time to respond to the Complaint only through December 30, 2009. The email advised that plaintiff might, but was not obligating itself to, consider further discussions on the subject in the interim. 11. Because plaintiff has not agreed to a sufficient extension of time to allow the MDL Panel to determine the issue of transfer of the Action, counsel for defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant an extension of defendant's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint until ten (10) days after the MDL Panel decides whether the Action should be transferred to the Southern District of New York for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. EFTA00608060 Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/18/2009 Page 5 of 6 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Civil No. 2009-106 Page 5 12. No prior application has been made seeking an enlargement of time within which to file an answer or responsive pleading to the Complaint. Dated: St. Thomas, V.I. December 18, 2009 DUDLEY, TOPPER and FEUERZEIG, LLP /s/ Chad C. Messier By: Chad C. Messier (V.I. Bar No. 497) 1000 Frederiksberg Gade P.O. Box 756 St. Thomas, VI 00804 Telephone: (340) 715-4436 Telefax: (340) 715-4400 Email: cmessier@dtflaw.com Attorney for Defendant The Bear Steams Companies Inc. EFTA00608061 Case: 3:09-cv-00106-CVG-GWB Document #: 3 Filed: 12/1812009 Page 6 of 6 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Civil No. 2009-106 Page 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 18, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CWEFC system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to: John K. Dema, Esq. Law Offices of John K. Dema, P.C. 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 St. Croix, VI 00820-5008 /s/ Chad C. Messier EFTA00608062 === IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS === [Image 1] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a legal or official notice. The document is titled "NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" and is numbered as "Document 1" in a case with the case number "1:09-cv-00555-WMW-MJW". The document is dated "December 15, 2009" and is from the "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York". The text of the document mentions a case inv [Image 2] The image displays a document, which appears to be a legal or official notice. The text is written in English and is structured in a formal manner, typical of official correspondence. The document includes a heading that reads "NOTICE OF ENTRANCE OF JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION" followed by a case number and a date. There are several paragraphs of text, which detail the nature of the case, the actio [Image 3] The image is a document scan, specifically a page from a legal case. The document is titled "NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" and is numbered as "109-0055656-00001". It is a formal legal notice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The notice is dated September 17, 2009, and it is addressed to the plaintiff in the case. The document outlines the details of the ju [Image 4] The image is a document scan, specifically a court document titled "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction." It appears to be a legal document related to a case involving a financial institution. The document includes a case number, a date, and the names of the parties involved. It outlines the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and prelimi [Image 5] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a legal notice or a letter from a law firm. The document is titled "NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" and is dated December 18, 2009. It is addressed to a person named "DAVID M. BROWN" and is signed by "CHAD C. MOSSER," who is identified as an attorney. The document mentions a case number and a reference to a judgment entered on December 15, 200 [Image 6] The image appears to be a document scan, specifically a letter or certificate. It is addressed to "John Doe" and is signed by "Chad M. Mills," who is identified as the "Chief Judge." The document mentions a "Certificate of Service" and refers to a "Court Order" dated "March 15, 2010." It also mentions a "Clerk of Court" and a "Court Reporter." The document is from the "United States District Court