Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 207

ORDER continuing motions (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice)
Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-628-5116
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806)
Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213-622-2690
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc.
and Jaco Electronics, Inc.
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17
18

In re TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Master Docket No. 07-m-1827 SI
Case Nos. C 09-5840 SI; 11-cv-02495 SI

19

This Document Relates To:

20

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO
DISMISS

21
22

Jaco Electonics, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., 11-cv-02495 SI

23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP

MASTER DOCKET NO.
07-M-1827 SI

ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1

Whereas, defendants Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“PENAC”),

2

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc. (“Samsung SDI”), and Sanyo Consumer

3

Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Sanyo CE”) filed Motions to Dismiss plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc.’s

4

(“Motorola”) Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on September 12, 2011;1

5

Whereas, defendants PENAC, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Royal Philips”),

6

Sanyo CE, Sanyo North America Corporation (“Sanyo NA”), Hannstar Display Corporation2

7

(“Hannstar”) filed Motions to Dismiss plaintiff Jaco Electronics Inc.’s (“Jaco”) First Amended

8

Complaint (“FAC”) on October 12, 2011;3

9
10
11
12
13

Whereas, the motions to dismiss the Motorola TAC are currently set for hearing on
November 4, 2011;
Whereas, the motions to dismiss the Jaco FAC are currently set for hearing on November
18, 2011;
Whereas, on October 19, 2011, counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class filed an

14

application with the Court seeking to continue the hearing on the motions to dismiss the Motorola

15

TAC to November 18, 2011, December 2, 2011, or another date of the Court’s choosing;

16

Whereas, PENAC, Samsung SDI, Sanyo CE and Motorola object to moving the hearing

17

date on the motions to dismiss the Motorola TAC, and believe that a continuance of the hearing

18

on the motions to dismiss the Motorola TAC, if the Court chooses to grant one, should be as short

19

as possible, given the “Track One” trial schedule;

20

Whereas, the parties believe that in the interest of efficiency, the motions to dismiss the

21
22

1

Docket Nos. 3528, 3529 and 3530.
Hannstar’s Motion was joined by AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation
America, Chi Mei Corporation, Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chimei Optoelectronics
Corp.), Chimei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Nexgen Mediatech, Inc.,
Nexgen Mediatech Usa, Inc., Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Epson Electronics America,
Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Sharp Corporation And Sharp Electronics
Corporation, Tatung Company Of America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Sanyo
Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America Corporation, Samsung SDI America, Inc.,
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.,
Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
3
Docket Nos. 3873, 3876, 3879 and 3880.
2

23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-1-

MASTER DOCKET NO. 07-M-1827 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1

Motorola TAC should be decided prior to further briefing on the motions to dismiss the Jaco

2

FAC, because the Jaco motions assert similar arguments to those raised in connection with the

3

Motorola motions to dismiss.

4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the

5

undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Motorola and Jaco, on the one hand,

6

and, PENAC, Royal Philips, Samsung SDI, Sanyo CE, Sanyo NA and Hannstar, on the other

7

hand, as follows:

8

1.

9
10

dismiss the Motorola TAC, the hearing on all three motions shall be continued to November 18,
2011;

11
12

Should the Court grant the DPPs’ request to continue the hearing on the motions to

2.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss the Jaco FAC shall be continued to January

13
6, 2011, and the briefing schedule shall be extended, as follows:

13

a.

Oppositions to be filed by:

December 14, 2011

14

b.

Replies to be filed by:

December 23, 2011

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-2-

CASE NO. C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1

Dated: October 21, 2011

2
/s/ Nathanial J. Wood
3
4
5
6
7
8

Jason C. Murray (CA Bar No. 169806)
Joshua C. Stokes (CA Bar No. 220214)
Nathanial J. Wood (CA Bar No. 223547)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213-622-2690
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13

Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice)
Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-628-5116
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19

Kenneth L. Adams (pro hac vice)
R. Bruce Holcomb (pro hac vice)
Christopher T. Leonardo (pro hac vice)
ADAMS HOLCOMB LLP
1875 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202-580-8821
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

20
21

Counsel for Plaintiffs Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Jaco
Electronics, Inc.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-3-

CASE NO. C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1
/s/ Michael W. Scarborough
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Michael W. Scarborough (SBN 203524)
Tyler Mark Cunningham (SBN 243694)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Eric S. O’Connor (SBN 223244)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112-0015
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212-653-8701
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc.
and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.

14
15

/s/ Brendan P. Cullen

16

Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2498
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants Philips Electronics North
America Corporation and Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V.

26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-4-

CASE NO. C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

/s/ Allison A. Davis
Allison A. Davis (SBN 139203)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Nick S. Verwolf (admitted pro hac vice)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
777 108th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004-5149
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant Sanyo Consumer Electronics
Co., Ltd. and Sanyo North America Corporation

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

/s/ Christopher M. Wyant
Hugh F. Bangasser, (Pro Hac Vice)
Ramona M. Emerson, (Pro Hac Vice)
Christopher M. Wyant, (Pro Hac Vice)
K&L GATES LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104-1158
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

21
22
23
24

Jeffrey L. Bornstein, State Bar No. 99358
K&L GATES LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

25
26

Attorneys for Defendant HannStar Display
Corporation

27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-5-

CASE NO. C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

1

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the

2

filing of this document has been obtained from Michael W. Scarborough, Brendan P.

3

Cullen, Allison A. Davis and Christopher M. Wyant.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: ________________, 2011

8
9
10

Susan Illston, United States District Judge
DCACTIVE-16417268.1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ROWELL
& M ORING LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

-6-

CASE NO. C 09-5840 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS