General Digital Corporation v. LG Philips LCD Co., LTD. et al

Filing 15

ORDER re 9 Stipulation filed by AU Optronics Corporation America,. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 2/12/07. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2007)

General Digital Corporation v. LG Philips LCD Co., LTD. et al

Doc. 15

Case 3:07-cv-00452-SI

Document 15

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

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
SF/1386749v1

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP MICHAEL F. HEALY (SBN 095098) CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (SBN 081297) MATTHEW C. LOVELL (SBN 189728) One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] WILLENKEN, WILSON, LOH & LIEB, LLP PAUL J. LOH (SBN 160541) NHAN T. VU (SBN 189508) JASON H. WILSON (SBN 140269) 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL DIGITAL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LG PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., ET AL., Defendants. WHEREAS plaintiff filed a complaint in the above-captioned case on January 23, 2007; WHEREAS plaintiff alleges antitrust violations by manufacturers of Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD") products; WHEREAS more than 10 complaints have been filed to date in federal district courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of direct
-1CASE NO. C-07-0452-MJJ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Dockets.Justia.com

CASE NO. C-07-0452-MJJ MDL 1827 In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (Pending) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:07-cv-00452-SI

Document 15

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

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
SF/1386749v1

purchasers alleging antitrust violations by manufacturers of LCD products (collectively, "the LCD Cases"); WHEREAS there is a motion pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the LCD Cases to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; WHEREAS plaintiff anticipates the possibility of Consolidated Amended Complaints in the LCD Cases; WHEREAS plaintiff and defendant AU Optronics Corporation America ("AUO America") have agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the LCD Cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the Court; WHEREAS plaintiff agrees that the deadline for AUO America to respond to the Complaint shall be extended until the earlier of the following dates: (1) 45 days after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the LCD Cases; or (2) 45 days after plaintiff provides written notice to AUO America that it does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided that such notice may be given only after the initial case management conference in the MDL transferee court in this case; WHEREAS plaintiff further agrees that this extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiff, to all named defendants who notify plaintiff in writing of their intention to join this extension; WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by AUO America or any defendant of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, or improper venue. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AUO AMERICA, BY AND THOUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The deadline for AUO America to respond to the Complaint shall be extended until

the earlier of the following dates: (1) 45 days after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the LCD Cases; or (2) 45 days after plaintiff provides written notice to AUO America that it does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided that such
-2CASE NO. C-07-0452-MJJ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:07-cv-00452-SI

Document 15

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 3 of 3

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
SF/1386749v1

notice may be given only after the initial case management conference in the MDL transferee court in this case; 2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiff or

further order of the Court, to all named defendants who notify plaintiff in writing of their intention to join this extension; and 3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by AUO America or any defendant

that joins in this Stipulation, of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, or improper venue. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: February 6, 2007 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP By:____/s/ Matthew C. Lovell_____________ Michael F. Healy Christopher A. Nedeau Matthew C. Lovell Attorneys for Defendant AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA DATED: February 6, 2007 GOLD, BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP By:____/s/ Joseph M. Barton________________ Joseph M. Barton Paul F. Bennett Steven O. Sidener Attorneys for Plaintiff OMNI CIRCUITS INTERNATIONAL, LLC. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 12 DATED: February ___, 2007

___

_________________________ The Honorable Martin Jenkins. Judge of the United States District Court

-3CASE NO. C-07-0452-MJJ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT