Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 92

ORDER RE: STIPULATION of Extension of Time to Answer Complaint and [Proposed] Order re 78 by LG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co. Ltd... Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/13/11. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Michael R. Lazerwitz (PRO HAC VICE)
Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062)
Lee F. Berger (State Bar No. 222756)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000
Washington, DC 20006
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and
LG Display America, Inc.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Jason C. Murray (State Bar No. 169806)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
Counsel for plaintiffs
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

18
19

MOTOROLA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23

CASE NO. 3:07-md-1827 SI
INDIVIDUAL ACTION NO. C 09-5840 SI
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME
TO ANSWER COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

The Honorable Susan J. Illston

24
25
26

WHEREAS the undersigned counsel, on behalf of plaintiff Motorola, Inc. filed a
27
Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case against LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG
28
1
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER,
Case No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, Individual Action No. C 09-5840 SI

1

Display America, Inc., (collectively, “Stipulating Defendants”), among other defendants, on July 23,

2

2010 (“Complaint”);
WHEREAS the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended

3
4

Complaint on March 28, 2011;
WHEREAS the Stipulating Defendants desire a reasonable amount of time to answer

5
6

the Complaint; and
THEREFORE, Motorola, Inc. and the Stipulating Defendants hereby agree:

7
8
9

1.

The Stipulating Defendants’ deadline to answer to the Second Amended Complaint will be 14

10

days from the execution of this stipulation, subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1).

11

DATED: April 11, 2011

12
13

By:

14
15
16
17
18

Counsel for defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG
Display America, Inc.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Michael R. Lazerwitz
Michael R. Lazerwitz (Pro Hac Vice)
Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062)
Lee F. Berger (State Bar No. 222756)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]

By:

/s/ Joshua C. Stokes
Jason C. Murray (State Bar No. 169806)
Joshua C. Stokes (State Bar. No. 220214)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
Jeffrey H. Howard (pro hac vice)
Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

2
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER,
Case No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, Individual Action No. C 09-5840 SI

1

3

[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4

Counsel for plaintiff Motorola, Inc.

2

5
6
7
8
9

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories
thereto has been obtained.
SO ORDERED
4/13/11

By:
Honorable Susan J. Illston

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER,
Case No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, Individual Action No. C 09-5840 SI