 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Wheatley Ventures, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket posted, on December 29, 1997, the Court entered the certified copy of the Order from U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The pending appeal was dismissed.
On October 28, 1996, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first and second claims for relief of the complaint. On January 24, 1997, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the first and second claims and dismissed the Fox defendants. On February 4, 1997, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Marilyn H. Patel the court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice, but without prejudice as to any state law claims that the plaintiff may have. Further, according to the Order, since the federal claims are dismissed and there is no diversity jurisdiction, the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. On March 5, 1997, the Court entered and Amended Opinion granting the Wheatley and Fox defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice, but without prejudice as to any state law claims that the plaintiff may have against them. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s decision on March 25, 1997
According to the complaint, Plaintiff brings this action as the result of facts discovered by her undersigned attorneys in April 1996 in a related action plaintiff and her mother brought on August 17, 1995, and which is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, entitled Dorothy M. Kaufman, et al. v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A., et al., Case No. CV 751777 (the "State Action"). The defendants, in the State Action are the same as the defendants in this action. By the State Action, plaintiffs challenge a tender offer (the "Tender Offer") made by defendant Wheatley Ventures, Inc. ("Wheatley") in the summer and fall of 1993 to the Noteholders of the outstanding Nonrecourse Promissory Notes (the "Notes") issued the Partnership.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code:
Sector:
Industry:
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Northern Trust Bank of California |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | PRIVATE |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| DeAnne R. Erickson, et al. v. Wheatley Ventures, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint For Damages For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Violation Of The Trust Indenture Act Of 1939, And Break Of Trust Indenture – Demand For Trial By Jury | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 8/14/1996 | ||
| Opinion (Re: Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Stay | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 01/31/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 02/06/1998 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: DeAnne R. Erickson, et al. v. Wheatley Ventures, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 06/15/1999 | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top