Jacobs v. Nvidia Corporation et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 5 Stipulation filed by Nvidia Corporation,. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 2/5/2007. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2007)

Jacobs v. Nvidia Corporation et al

Doc. 9

Case 3:07-cv-00302-WHA Case 3:07-cv-00302-MJJ

Document 5 Document 9

Filed 01/25/2007 Filed 02/05/2007

Page 11of 44 Page of

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL (170085) ([e-mail]) JAMES DONATO (146140) ([e-mail]) JOHN C. DWYER (136533) ([e-mail]) JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083) ([e-mail]) 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY JACOBS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendants.

Case No. C-07-0302 MJJ CLASS ACTION STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND ORDER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Roy Jacobs and Defendants Nvidia Corporation ("Nvidia"), ATI Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (collectively "AMD") stipulate and agree as follows to extend the time to respond to the complaint on file in this action ("Complaint"). 1. On January 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, which alleges claims under

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff has styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 23 other complaints have been filed in

this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints also allege federal and/or state law antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD and are styled as putative class actions.

1024665 v1/SF

1.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT C-07-0302 MJJ

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-00302-WHA Case 3:07-cv-00302-MJJ

Document 5 Document 9

Filed 01/25/2007 Filed 02/05/2007

Page 22of 44 Page of

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

3.

On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in some of these other actions collectively filed a

motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and consolidate in this judicial district all existing and subsequently filed antitrust actions related to the claims alleged in the Complaint. On January 16, 2007, AMD and Nvidia filed a response with the JPML proposing that the Panel consolidate these actions in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. 4. On December 14, 2006, pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, the plaintiff in another action

(Juskiewicz v. Nvidia Corp., et al., Case No. C-06-7553) filed an "Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related" to relate that action to a similar action (Truong v. Nvidia Corp., et al., Case No. C-06-7417) filed in this district against Nvidia and AMD. That motion was granted on January 23, 2007. 5. In light of the multiplicity of complaints on file and the pending motion before the

JPML, the parties agree to extend the time for Nvidia and AMD to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to 30 days after (1) the order resolving the JPML motion, and (2) the filing and service of any subsequent consolidated complaint, without prejudice to the right of Nvidia or AMD to seek additional time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint for good cause shown. Dated: January 25, 2007 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP By: /s/ James Donato James Donato (146140)

Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION

1024665 v1/SF

2.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT C-07-0302 MJJ

Case 3:07-cv-00302-WHA Case 3:07-cv-00302-MJJ

Document 5 Document 9

Filed 01/25/2007 Filed 02/05/2007

Page 33of 44 Page of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dated: January 25, 2007 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP By: /s/ Charles H. Samel Charles H. Samel (182019)

Dated: January 25, 2007 HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP By: /s/ Randall R. Sjoblom Randall R. Sjoblom (229574)

Attorneys for Defendants ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff ROY JACOBS

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

UNIT ED

9

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O
R NIA

TE GRAN
arti Judge M

D

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

2/5/2007

A

C

LI

FO

n J. Jenk

ins

NO

RT
1024665 v1/SF

H

3.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT C-07-0302 MJJ

Case 3:07-cv-00302-WHA Case 3:07-cv-00302-MJJ

Document 5 Document 9

Filed 01/25/2007 Filed 02/05/2007

Page 44of 44 Page of

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

FILER'S ATTESTATION: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. Dated: January 25, 2007 By: /s/ James Donato James Donato

1024665 v1/SF

4.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT C-07-0302 MJJ